Assisted suicide has been a controversial topic for many years. Assisted suicide gives the patient’s physicians the right to end the patient’s life with their consent if they are terminally ill. In the two articles, “Physician-Assisted Suicide: Death With Dignity?” by Mary Louanne Friend, MN, RN and “Assisted suicide and the killing of people? Maybe. Physician-assisted suicide and the killing of patients? No: the rejection of Shaw’s new perspective on euthanasia” by Hugh V McLachlan. McLachlan was generally for assisted suicide in the fact that physicians are allowed to do voluntary active euthanasia upon patient’s request. In some ways Friend was too, but she also illustrated ways she was against it. Both articles had strong arguments, but …show more content…
She also talked about how Derek Humphry, a British journalist who founded the Hemlock Society in the United States, helped his wife take her life because she suffered from a painful cancer. Friend states, “According to Humphry (2000), the ultimate civil liberty is the right to choose to die when in advanced terminal or hopeless illness” (111). Her argument was very unclear since she seems to be for it, but near the end she shows ways she is against it. Friend talked about Immanuel Kant, where she states, “According to Kant, the act of suicide to escape a difficult situation would constitute making use of a one’s person as a means to an end and also would defy self-love and self-preservation. Kant permits no exceptions because the act of killing could never become a universal law of nature. As a result, assisted suicide would also be immoral” (113). Friend agreed with both Humphry and Kant even with their opposing arguments. Later in the article she offers some alternative solutions to physician assisted suicide, and then says something that counteracts it later on. For example, “Hospice programs remain our finest way of taking care of persons with terminal disease. At the same time, there is currently a shortage of health care providers who are specifically trained in palliative care” (115). …show more content…
Shaw focuses mainly on the fact that if a lung cancer patient, Brian, asks that his doctor disconnects his ventilator, the doctor may do so to end the pain, which is voluntary passive euthanasia. Although, if a brain cancer patient, Adam, asks for a medication to end his pain, the doctor is not allowed to, because it is physician assisted suicide (306-307). To Shaw, it is the same, both are experiencing pain, both should be able to end it if they want to. To him it is not fair if one person in pain is allowed to end it because of a certain illness, but someone else who could be in equal or greater pain cannot because it is not as easy as just shutting off a ventilator. McLachlan states, “According to Shaw: ‘This implies that the distinction between artificial and natural (bodily) means of life-support is a false one.. Although there may be a difference between their situations in medical and legal terms, this is the true moral status of the situation: both Brian and Adam are dying, are in pain, and are requesting the deactivation of something that is keeping them alive against their will’” (307). McLachlan also states that Shaw feels, “‘...if there is really no moral difference between VAE and VPE, it follows that doctors have a duty either to perform both or to perform neither’” (309). By Shaw bringing up voluntary passive euthanasia as his counterargument to assisted suicide, his
Diane: A Case of Physician Assisted Suicide. Diane was a patient of Dr. Timothy Quill, who was diagnosed with acute myelomonocytic leukemia. Diane overcame alcoholism and had vaginal cancer in her youth. She had been under his care for a period of 8 years, during which an intimate doctor-patient bond had been established.
The discussion of physician-assisted suicide is frequently focused around the ethical implications. The confusion commonly surfaces from the simple question, what is physician-assisted suicide? Physician-assisted suicide can be defined as a circumstance in which a medical physician provides a lethal dose of medication to a patient with a fatal illness. In this case, the patient has given consent, as well as direction, to the physician to ethically aid in their death (Introduction to Physician-Assisted Suicide: At Issue,
gotten to the point where they feel as if there is no point in living.
Imagine, if you will, that you have just found out you have a terminal medical condition. Doesn’t matter which one, it’s terminal. Over the 6 months you have to live you experience unmeasurable amounts of pain, and when your free of your pain the medication you’re under renders you in an impaired sense of consciousness. Towards the 4th month, you begin to believe all this suffering is pointless, you are to die anyways, why not with a little dignity. You begin to consider Physician-Assisted Suicide (PAS). In this essay I will explain the ethical decisions and dilemmas one may face when deciding to accept the idea of Physician-Assisted Suicide. I will also provide factual information pertaining to the subject of PAS and testimony from some that advocate for legalization of PAS. PAS is not to be taken lightly. It is the decision to end one’s life with the aid of a medical physician. Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary states that PAS is “Suicide by a patient facilitated by means (as a drug prescription) or by information (as an indication of a lethal dosage) provided by a physician aware of the patient’s intent.” PAS is considered, by our textbook – Doing Ethics by Lewis Vaughn, an active voluntary form of euthanasia. There are other forms of euthanasia such as non-voluntary, involuntary, and passive. This essay is focusing on PAS, an active voluntary form of euthanasia. PAS is commonly known as “Dying/Death with Dignity.” The most recent publicized case of PAS is the case of Brittany Maynard. She was diagnosed with terminal brain cancer in California, where she lived. At the time California didn’t have Legislative right to allow Brittany the right to commit PAS so she was transported to Oregon where PAS is legal....
...idered before resorting to the immoral act of physician assisted suicide. Although people may resort to physician assisted suicide out of a seemingly compassionate attempt to end another person’s suffering, or to respect another person’s autonomy or wishes, it is contradictory once violating human life. Those who resort to physician assisted suicide should instead turn to others in assisting himself or herself to have a supportive, positive, comforting, loving, and peaceful experience as possible when at the end of life.
Callahan, Daniel. "Physician -assisted Suicide Should Not be Legal." Suicide: Opposing Viewpoints. Biskup, Michael. ed. San Diego. Greenhaven Press, Inc.1992.
The issue of physician assisted suicide has been around for quite a while. There has been many court cases on it to make it legalized but all of it has been struck down by the Supreme Court. What seem to be a lost cause in the past is now becoming a real possibility as America moves further into the twenty-first century. As citizens increase their support for PAS, many states are beginning to draft bills to legalize this cause, with tough restriction and regulation of course. In 1997, Oregon became the first state to legalized physician assisted suicide for the terminally ill. Soon after, three other states (Washington, Vermont, and Montana) follow Oregon’s footstep while two other states are inching closer to making this procedure legal. Even so, there are still many people against PAS and are constantly fighting this from becoming legal. With the rise of popularity on this issue, the debate on whether one has the right to end their life, and the morality of this issue are reason why the UTA community should care about this topic and why it is worth exploring the three position concerning PAS. In this paper, I will discuss the three main position on this debate: that physician assisted suicide should be illegal, that physician assisted suicide should be limited to terminally ill patient, and that physician assisted suicide should be available for everyone.
...hat patients should be allowed to make the decision of the right time to end their life’s and to always have the right to die with dignity. Without physician assistance people who are terminal ill may commit suicide in a messy, horrifying and traumatic way. Terminal ill patients sometimes suffer discomfort and pains so terrible that is beyond the comprehension of those who have not actually experienced it. The options given to those individuals to end their own life can saved them from their misery, therefore such policies are morally right. Also with allowing this policies we can spare a lot of suffering to the family, without a doubt it can be traumatic for a family member see their loved ones slowly die. Sometimes terminal ill patients remain connected to artificial respirators devices, taking strong doses of painkillers and in general living an unworthy life.
Physician assisted suicide (PAS) is a very important issue. It is also important tounderstand the terms and distinction between the varying degrees to which a person can be involved in hastening the death of a terminally ill individual. Euthanasia, a word that is often associated with physician assisted suicide, means the act or practice of killing for reasons of mercy. Assisted suicide takes place when a dying person who wishes to precipitate death, requests help in carrying out the act. In euthanasia, the dying patients may or may not be aware of what is happening to them and may or may not have requested to die. In an assisted suicide, the terminally ill person wants to die and has specifically asked for help. Physician-assisted suicide occurs when the individual assisting in the suicide is a doctor rather than a friend or family member. Because doctors are the people most familiar with their patients’ medical condition and have knowledge of and access to the necessary means to cause certain death, terminally ill patients who have made
As patients come closer to the end of their lives, certain organs stop performing as well as they use to. People are unable to do simple tasks like putting on clothes, going to the restroom without assistance, eat on our own, and sometimes even breathe without the help of a machine. Needing to depend on someone for everything suddenly brings feelings of helplessness much like an infant feels. It is easy to see why some patients with terminal illnesses would seek any type of relief from this hardship, even if that relief is suicide. Euthanasia or assisted suicide is where a physician would give a patient an aid in dying. “Assisted suicide is a controversial medical and ethical issue based on the question of whether, in certain situations, Medical practioners should be allowed to help patients actively determine the time and circumstances of their death” (Lee). “Arguments for and against assisted suicide (sometimes called the “right to die” debate) are complicated by the fact that they come from very many different points of view: medical issues, ethical issues, legal issues, religious issues, and social issues all play a part in shaping people’s opinions on the subject” (Lee). Euthanasia should not be legalized because it is considered murder, it goes against physicians’ Hippocratic Oath, violates the Controlled
The right to assisted suicide is a significant topic that concerns people all over the United States. The debates go back and forth about whether a dying patient has the right to die with the assistance of a physician. Some are against it because of religious and moral reasons. Others are for it because of their compassion and respect for the dying. Physicians are also divided on the issue. They differ where they place the line that separates relief from dying--and killing. For many the main concern with assisted suicide lies with the competence of the terminally ill. Many terminally ill patients who are in the final stages of their lives have requested doctors to aid them in exercising active euthanasia. It is sad to realize that these people are in great agony and that to them the only hope of bringing that agony to a halt is through assisted suicide.When people see the word euthanasia, they see the meaning of the word in two different lights. Euthanasia for some carries a negative connotation; it is the same as murder. For others, however, euthanasia is the act of putting someone to death painlessly, or allowing a person suffering from an incurable and painful disease or condition to die by withholding extreme medical measures. But after studying both sides of the issue, a compassionate individual must conclude that competent terminal patients should be given the right to assisted suicide in order to end their suffering, reduce the damaging financial effects of hospital care on their families, and preserve the individual right of people to determine their own fate.
Euthanasia is a serious political, moral and ethics issues in society. People either strictly forbid or firmly favor euthanasia. Terminally ill patients have a fatal disease from which they will never recover, many will never sleep in their own bed again. Many beg health professionals to “pull the plug” or smother them with a pillow so that they do not have to bear the pain of their disease so that they will die faster. Thomas D. Sullivan and James Rachels have very different views on the permissibility of active and passive euthanasia. Sullivan believes that it is impermissible for the doctor, or anyone else to terminate the life of a patient but, that it is permissible in some cases to cease the employment of “extraordinary means” of preserving
Assisted suicide brings up one of the biggest moral debates currently circulating in America. Physician assisted suicide allows a patient to be informed, including counseling about and prescribing lethal doses of drugs, and allowed to decide, with the help of a doctor, to commit suicide. There are so many questions about assisted suicide and no clear answers. Should assisted suicide be allowed only for the terminally ill, or for everyone? What does it actually mean to assist in a suicide? What will the consequences of legalizing assisted suicide be? What protection will there be to protect innocent people? Is it (morally) right or wrong? Those who are considered “pro-death”, believe that being able to choose how one dies is one’s own right.
Issue: Should Physician assisted suicide (PAS) or euthanasia be legalized for patients who suffer from terminal illnesses?
Throughout the course of history, death and suffering have been a prominent topic of discussion among people everywhere. Scientists are constantly looking for ways to alleviate and/or cure the pain that comes with the process of dying. Treatments typically focus on pain management and quality of life, and include medication and various types of therapy. When traditional treatments are not able to eliminate pain and suffering or the promise of healing, patients will often consider euthanasia or assisted suicide. Assisted suicide occurs when a person is terminally ill and believes that their life is not worth living anymore. As a result of these thoughts and feelings, a physician or other person is enlisted to “assist” the patient in committing suicide. Typically this is done by administering a lethal overdose of a narcotic, antidepressant or sedative, or by combining drugs to create an adverse reaction and hasten the death of the sick patient. Though many people believe that assisted suicide is a quick and honorable way to end the sufferings of a person with a severe illness, it is, in fact, morally wrong. Assisted suicide is unethical because it takes away the value of a human life, it is murder, and it opens the door for coercion of the elderly and terminally ill to seek an untimely and premature death. Despite the common people’s beliefs, assisted suicide is wrong and shouldn’t be legalized.