Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
medical ethics case study
physician assisted suicide compared to murder
medical ethics case study
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: medical ethics case study
If someone is terminally ill, should a doctor be allowed, with consent from the patient and their family, to give the person an overdose in order to end the person’s life?
Being sick and weak has driven people to wish they were dead. People like to be strong and powerful and able, and many cannot cope with reality once they lose the abilities they once had. They become helpless and fragile and it is embarrassing for them to have others see them that way. Some medical patients loose the drive to live. Certain doctors, such as Dr. Jack Kevorkian (who helped approximately 130 people with ‘physician-assisted suicide’), see the anguish this causes them, and have interceded to help them achieve death by giving the patients overdoses of their medicines, or by unhooking them from any life support their bodies had been dependent on. Intentionally killing someone, by action or by doing nothing, for his or her own good is called euthanasia. Physician-assisted suicide, as it is called when the medical persona executes a patient on request, is unethical, inhumane, and a direct violation of the classical doctors’ Hippocratic oath.
The oath states, quite clearly, that the doctor will ‘give no deadly medicine to anyone if asked, nor suggest any such counsel.” Another translation rephrases this, saying, “I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody who asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect.” Obviously, physician-assisted suicide contradicts the oath doctors take before going into their practice. The writers of the Hippocratic oath were clearly saying that to kill someone with medicine meant to heal, that is to go against any doctor’s policy. Besides weakening the credibility of the oath, which has for ages reassur...
... middle of paper ...
... to hold.
Sometimes, it is better for euthanasia to take place. When someone is in a coma, and is hooked up to a feeding tube and a respirator, they are not truly ‘alive’. Their body functions and their organs keep working, but it is the machine that is living, and it is forcing the body, with no ‘soul’ or ‘consciousness’ inside, to be on the receiving end. When the physician kills the patient by letting them fly free, and not confining them with equipment, it is called euthanasia by omission, and that is no sin. Why keep someone alive when his or her body is clearly ready to retire? However, when a body keeps living despite having no prompts from an apparatus, and it is self-sustaining, is it right for the person to demand death, and should the doctors be allowed to give it to them? Does having the means to confer death give them, too, the right to bestow it?
Once physician- assisted suicide (PAS) is legalized, the Oath doctors take would be infringed upon. Allen states “Physician-assisted suicide is viewed as the most controversial types of euthanasia because it violates the Hippocratic Oath” (15). The oath consists of the doctors promising to keep the patients’ health and well-being first and try their best to keep their patients’ lives long and healthy until it is naturally their time to leave the world. (Allen 15). It is obviously a violation of the oath when doctors aid in the death of their patients. They do not help the patients pr...
As any individual can imagine, there is a lot of suffering and pain in most, if not all hospital settings. At times, no amount of medication or experimental treatment can change an individual’s mind on the quality of their life, such that the only way to end their suffering is to die, hence physician assisted suicide. Defined as a patient taking their own life with the help of a physician, this assisted suicide practice is highly controversial and illegal in most but California, Montana, Oregon, Washington and Vermont. Putting the law aside, the morality of the practice itself is still questioned.
The biggest problem above all in the debate over the ethics of physician assisted suicide is the sanctity of life. Whether the procedure is forced or chosen, the ultimate result is a death in an unnatural way. Not only is a life being taken, but the dignity of a person is as well. The term “death with dignity” is self-contradictory. Choosing to give up and take the easy way out is not an honorable effort. Also, for a physician to involve themselves in the death of another person, he or she is contributing to the devaluing of human life (Braddock
The idea of Physician-Assisted suicide is one that carries many misconceptions and comes with much opposition. Of these opponents, many are doctors and nurses. This opposition is deeply rooted in the belief that the practice of medicine is one that has the sole purpose to increase the quality of life for people and to prolong life. These beliefs are rooted in the Hippocratic Oath, an Oath that all doctors promise to uphold. The Hippocratic Oath proclaims that “I will give no deadly medicine to anyone if asked, nor suggest any such counsel” ("The End of Life: Ethical Considerations"). This Oath is a major reason for many nurses and doctors opposing the practice; however, it is not the only source for opposition. In addition to the Hippocratic...
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.
Terminally ill patients should have the legal option of physician-assisted suicide. Terminally ill patients deserve the right to control their own death. Legalizing assisted suicide would relive families of the burdens of caring for a terminally ill relative. Doctors should not be prosecuted for assisting in the suicide of a terminally ill patient. We as a society must protect life, but we must also recognize the right to a humane death. When a person is near death, in unbearable pain, they have the right to ask a physician to assist in ending their lives.
The concept of physician-assisted suicide has been a topic of debate since the birth of medicine. Controversy even surrounds its name as the term “suicide” is associated with a form of mental illness and irrational behavior, both of which are to be prevented it if at all possible according to medical obligation (Quill and Greenlaw). Physician assisted death/suicide occurs when a physician provides a medical means of death and instruction to a patient but does not administer the actual cause of death (Lonnquist and Weiss 389-91). This is quite different than the concept of active euthanasia in which a physician directly administers the cause of death. Recognized as far back as the 5th century BCE in the ancient Hippocratic Oath, the origin of this practice cou...
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
Having the title of a physician holds a great deal of weight, and many obligations. One of doctor 's most important duties is to accommodate his or her patients to the fullest making him or her as comfortable as possible while trying to alleviate all pain in a timely fashion. In certain situations(mostly in the elderly and terminally ill) a doctor is not able to eliminate all pain forcing the patient to live out the last moments of his or her life in agony and misery. Unfortunately, from time to time an individual’s last option should he or she wish to die peacefully would be death. Although assisted suicide seems like a situation where far more problems are created rather than solutions(which is why many encourage assisted suicide to remain
Euthanasia has been a controversial topic in the United States for many years now. Euthanasia is the practice of intentionally ending ones life, to relive them from any more pain or suffering. Euthanasia can also be known as mercy killing or mercy death. There are many different viewpoints on whether euthanasia is right or wrong. Those who are for euthanasia believes it is a way to relive extreme pain and suffering and it is a right of freedom of choice to do what one wants to their body. Those who are against euthanasia believe euthanasia devalues human life, goes against religion, and it can cause a slippery slope effect. Euthanasia is a topic that is viewed in different ways in the eyes of different people it is either viewed as a persons
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
Some feel that a terminally ill patient should have a legal right to control the manner in which they die. Physicians and nurses have fought for the right to aid a patient in their death. Many families of the terminally ill have exhausted all of their funds caring for a dying patient and would prefer the option of assisted suicide to bankruptcy. While there are many strong opposing viewpoints, one of the strongest is that the terminally ill patient has the right to die in a humane, dignified manner. However, dignity in dying is not necessarily assured when a trusted doctor, whose professional ethics are to promote and maintain life, injects a terminally ill patient with a lethal dose of morphine.
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 an extremely controversial topic in today’s society. It is defined as the act or practice of killing someone who is very sick or injured in order to prevent undue pain and suffering (Webster Dictionary). There are two main types of euthanasia; voluntary and involuntary. Involuntary is without consent from the patient; while voluntary euthanasia has the patients consent. While euthanasia is illegal in the United States, it is still in practice in many other countries. In this paper I will argue that it is morally wrong for someone to kill a person, even it is on medical terms.
... greater pain and anguish for longer periods of time than my father did, I believe euthanasia is the only compassionate form of relief we can provide. I believe it is morally important to allow an individual to die with respect for his or her dignity, while respecting his or her autonomy. Because of these reasons, euthanasia is morally justified when administered under strict controls.