More handpicked essays just for you.
Ethical dilemmas for the medical field
Physician assisted suicide ethically correct
Ethical dilemmas for the medical field
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Ethical dilemmas for the medical field
Proposition 106: A step forward or a step in the wrong direction? Colorado’s Proposition 106, or more commonly known as “The Right to Die” would at this moment make it perfectly legal for physician-assisted suicide in Colorado. The creation of this proposition is to give individuals who are terminally ill a chance have another option than what is considered a painful and slow death. By giving them a medication that would provide them with a chance to end their own life. By believing that by taking this additional option gives the families’ of these individuals a chance not having to witness their loved one slowly fade away. Furthermore not having to deal with extravagant medical costs in search of treatment.
As a result, the Archdiocese of Denver and several other religious and secular individuals and organizations came out against the proposition. With the primary focus on us as a society do not have the right to play God, and furthermore, could this proposition be abused in any manner. Citing confusing and contradicting wording in the original proposition itself. Also, citing that individuals could potentially abuse it by not going to their own doctor but anyone with a medical degree, therefore having easier access to the medication. Even medical professionals
…show more content…
Sixteen and seventeen-year-olds do not need consent from their parent or guardian in principle but should be part of the decision-making process. As of 18 years old, the individual has right to request euthanasia and does not need to seek parental or guardian consent ("Euthanasia, Assisted Suicide). According to Tom Embury-Dennis of The Independent a British paper, reports Mark Langedijk a Dutch man decided to end his own life via euthanasia due to being an alcoholic. Despite seeking help for eight years (Embury-Dennis,
The Supreme Court reversed the decision concluding that Smith et al. were using their religious beliefs and the First Amendment to condone their illegal drug use. In addition the Justices expressed the view that the law applied to the general public, not to just one religious group. Therefore, in a 6-3 decision, the Supr...
The ethical issues of physician-assisted suicide are both emotional and controversial, as it struggles with the issue of life and death. If you take a moment and imagine how you would choose to live your last day, it is almost guaranteed that it wouldn’t be a day spent lying in a hospital bed, suffering in pain, continuously being pumped with medicine, and living in a strangers’ body. Today we live in a culture that denies the terminally ill the right to maintain control over when and how to end their lives. Physicians-assisted suicide “is the voluntary termination of one's own life by the administration of a lethal substance with the direct or indirect assistance of a physician” (Medical Definition of Physician-Assisted Suicide, 2017). Physician-assisted
The Honourable David Johnson introduced Bill 160, the Education Quality Improvement Act during the first Session of the 36th Parliament of the Province of Ontario. Bill 160 was originally written as "an act to reform the education system, protect classroom funding, and enhance accountability and make other improvements consistent with the Government's education quality agenda, including improving student achievement and regulated class size". The negative effects of Bill 160 were displayed using several different political concepts. These include historical background, power, politics, authority, influence, legitimacy, coercion and obligation.
It has been said that California’s 1996 Proposition 209 is misleading. It can also be said that it is discriminating to women and minorities. Proposition 209 was passed on November, 5 1996 but has not taken effect since the Supreme Court ruled that it is unconstitutional in February 1997.
Proposition 36 The Real Truth As you might already be aware, there is a ballot initiative in this upcoming November’s election about drugs, and drug treatment. This measure is called Proposition 36. If this measure were to pass, state law would be changed, so that certain non-violent adult offenders who use or possess illegal drugs would receive drug treatment and supervision in the community, not prison. Right now, California is ranked number one in the nation for its rate of imprisonment for drug offenders. If Proposition 36 passes, California could become number one for its treatment of drug offenders.
There are many legal and ethical issues when discussing the topic of physician-assisted suicide (PAS). The legal issues are those regarding numerous court cases over the past few decades, the debate over how the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution comes into play, and the legalization vs. illegalization of this practice. The 14th Amendment states, “nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws” (U.S. Const. amend. XIV, §1). PAS in the past has been upheld as illegal due to the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment of the constitution, but in recent years this same 14th amendment is also part of the reasoning for legalizing PAS, “nor shall any State deprive any person of…liberty” (U.S. Const. amend. XIV, §1). The ethical issues surrounding this topic include a patient’s autonomy and dignity and if PAS should be legalized everywhere. This paper is an analysis of the PAS debate and explores these different issues using a specific case that went to the supreme courts called Washington et al. v. Glucksberg et al.
America is a champion of the freedom of choice. Citizens have the right to choose their religion, their political affiliation, and make personal decisions about nearly every facet of their daily lives. Despite all of these opportunities, one choice society commonly ignores is that of deciding how one’s life will end. Death seems like a highly unpredictable, uncontrollable occurrence, but for the past 17 years, citizens of Oregon have had one additional option not offered to most Americans in the deciding of their end-of-life treatment. Oregon’s Death With Dignity Act (DWDA), passed in 1994, allows qualified, terminally-ill Oregon patients to end their lives through the use of a doctor-prescribed, self-administered, lethal prescription (Office of Disease Prevention and Epidemiology, n.d.). The nationally controversial act has faced injunctions, an opposing measure, and has traveled to the Supreme Court, however it still remains in effect today.
Proposition 8 was a piece of legislation formally called the California Marriage Protection Act which was an amendment to the Constitution of the State of California. The amendment was voted on and passed during the state elections of November 5th, 2008. The new legislation added to the constitution reads: “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.” The issue was prompted in May of 2008, when the California Supreme Court ruled that same sex couples had a right to marry one another according to the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution of the United States. This overruled earlier legislation known as Proposition 22, which was in fact the same as Proposition 8, but was a part of California’s Family Code, and not written into the constitution. Because the Constitution was given precedence over the Family Code in the Supreme Court’s ruling, Proposition 22 was rendered obsolete. Many people who shared conservative views about the meaning of marriage took exception to that and took action to create Proposition 8.
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....
Most people agree that to cause one's death directly is objectively wrong. They also recognize that people who commit suicide are usually not fully responsible because depression or intractable pain has overwhelmed them. Most of them also agree that physician-assisted suicide must be stopped. In a survey conducted at the University of Arizona in March 1999, 85% of 500 students supported that by legalizing physician-assisted deaths, society runs the risk of sliding into a practice of both true involuntary euthanasia and exerting subtle pressures on vulnerable and disenfranchised patients to opt for an a...
As one can see, physician-assisted suicide has a long and complicated history. Recent developments in the United States have brought the issues associated with end-of-life decisions under the microscope. The morality and ethics associated with voluntarily assisting someone while committing suicide have struck a chord with individuals, organizations, and in the political and medicinal sectors. The Hippocratic Oath and Pharmaceutical Oath have become subject to scrutiny with the gaining popularity and legalization of terminally ill patients seeking dignity in death. Increasingly, people are supporting the tough decisions made by patients.
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.
The debate on whether voluntary euthanasia should be legalized has been a controversial topic. Euthanasia is defined as ‘a deliberate intervention undertaken with the express intention of ending a life, to relieve intractable suffering’ [1]. Voluntary euthanasia refers to the patients who understand the terms in the consent and sign up under consciousness, while involuntary euthanasia is performed against patient's wishes and some people may regard it as a murder [1].
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.
Euthanasia is a medical procedure which speeds up the process of dying for people with incurable, painful, or distressing diseases. The patient’s doctor can stop treatment and instead let them die from their illness. It come from the Greek words for 'good' and 'death', and is also called mercy killing. Euthanasia is illegal in most countries including the UK . If you suffer from an incurable disease, you cannot legally terminate your life. However, in a number of European countries it is possible to go to a clinic which will assist you to die gracefully under some very strict circumstances.