The Ethical Dilemma of Physician Assisted Suicide
There is great debate in this country and worldwide over whether or not terminally ill patients who are experiencing great suffering should have the right to choose death. A deep divide amongst the American public exists on the issue. It is extremely important to reach an ethical decision on whether or not terminally ill patients have this right to choose death, since many may be needlessly suffering, if an ethical solution exists.
Clarify Concepts
Physician assisted suicide - the ending of a terminally ill patient’s life with the assistance of a physician who will normally supply a drug for the patient to take.
Euthanasia – the ending of a terminally ill patient’s life by a third party, normally a physician, to end the pain and suffering of the patient.
Palliative care - treatment that helps to comfort patients, while slowing the progress of a disease.
Identify Possible Solutions to the Problem
There exists two possible solutions to the ethical dilemma of a terminally ill patient’s right to die: they are the legalization of physician assisted suicide and the banning of it. This paper will explore whether the legalization of PAS should be the recommended course of action or whether there are sufficient negative issues surrounding it to make the banning of it, the correct ethical choice.
Assumptions and Points of View
Legalize physician assisted suicide - Those that believe that physician assisted suicide should be legal primarily argue on the basis of patient autonomy and family considerations. The first argument, patient autonomy, states that terminally ill patients should have the right to control the circumstances of their death and to determine when t...
... middle of paper ...
... were to be legalized, there would likely be many protests by religious groups and others who believe that any kind of killing is wrong. Many religions feel that only God should decide when and how a person is to die, so would likely take great offense to its legalization.
Another consequence would be felt by the insurance companies. It is much cheaper to pay for the drugs that would be used to end the life of a terminally ill patient than it would be to continue to pay for ongoing treatments. This would result in an improved financial situation for most insurance companies.
The most important consequences would be felt by the patients and their family members, who would likely experience less grief. In most cases, the consequences should be positive, which helps make the legalization of physician assisted suicide the correct ethical choice.
Terminally ill patients deserve the right to have a dignified death. These patients should not be forced to suffer and be in agony their lasting days. The terminally ill should have this choice, because it is the only way to end their excruciating pain. These patients don’t have
...their own life and die with their own dignity is huge thing among anyone. No one should be denied the right to leave this earth if they are in constant and terrible pain. But people were also asked whether physician-assisted suicide should be allowed for people in severe pain who aren't terminally ill or for those with disabilities and the outcome was, “a solid majority — 71 percent — opposed the idea, with only 29 percent in favor of it. The results were the same as in 2011.” (Hensley, 2012). The whole idea of having physician-assisted suicide is for a patient with a severe illness with months to live is to go out in peace and without any complications. Overall, physician-assisted suicide has many pros and cons but the main issue is the patient. It should not be up to anybody except the dying patient. There are only four states that have legalized assisted-suicide.
There are many convincing and compelling arguments for and against Physician Assisted Suicide. There are numerous different aspects of this issue, including religious, legal and ethical issues. However, for the purpose of this paper, I will examine the ethical concerns of both sides. There are strong pro and con arguments regarding this, and I will make a case for both. It is definitely an issue that has been debated for years and will continue to be debated in years to come.
There are several important ethical issues related to euthanasia. One is allowing people who are terminally ill and suffering the right to choose death. Should these people continue to suffer even though they really are ba...
Physician aid-in-dying (PAD) is an act of a physician aiding in the death of a competent, terminally ill patient(Dudzinski, Starks, White 2009).The death is carried out by the patient being given a lethal dose of medications which the patient must self-administer to end his or her life. Physician-assisted suicide (PAS), is the act which the physician aids the patient in killing him or herself. Euthanasia is carried out by a third person administering the lethal dose of medication. The ethical question of these acts being permissible is still being argued (Dudzinski, Starks, and White 2009)
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....
In the medical field, there has always been the question raised, “What is ethical?” There is a growing conflict between two important principles: autonomy and death being considered a medical treatment. Physician assisted suicide is defined as help from a medical professional,
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.
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
According to dictionary.com Physician assisted suicide is suicide by a patient facilitated by means or information as in a drug prescription or
The approach of physician-assisted suicide respects an individual’s need for personal dignity. It does not force the terminally ill patient to linger hopelessly, and helplessly, often at great cost to their psyche. It drive’s people mad knowing they are going to die in a short period of time, suffering while they wait in a hospital bed.
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.
Physician assisted suicide is defined as; a physician providing medications or medical assistance to a patient with the understanding that the patient intends to use them to commit suicide (Manning, 1998).
Physician-assisted suicide refers to the physician acting indirectly in the death of the patient -- providing the means for death.
One bad consequence that some anticipate is that active euthanasia would weaken society's commitment to providing optimal care for dying patients. Today, our health care system is largely focused on medical costs and if patients are able to afford it or not. “Euthanasia is…a very cheap service. The cost of a dose of barbiturates and curare and the few hours in a hospital bed that it takes them to act is minute compared to the massive bills incurred by many patients in the last weeks and months of their lives” (Potts 81). If euthanasia appears to be a cheaper method than providing hospice care would this potentially have a negative effect on how patients who do not chose euthanasia are treated? This is an answer we do not know for certain but it should not be disregarded. Additionally, legalizing euthanasia would also diminish all hope. Most people have heard of a miracle story about a patient who had a limited amount of time left to live and made a shocking recovery. These doctors who made the prognosis of patients whom have made a shocking recovery against all odds “... [experience] the wonderful embarrassment of being proven wrong in his or her pessimistic prognosis. To make euthanasia a legitimate option as soon as the prognosis is pessimistic enough is to reduce the probability of such extraordinary recoveries from low to zero” (Potts 79).