Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
End of life decision making essay
The need for physician assisted suicide
The need for physician assisted suicide
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: End of life decision making essay
We All Have the Right to Physician-Assisted Suicide
Physician-assisted suicide presents one of the greatest dilemmas to the medical profession. Should someone who is mentally competent, but deemed terminally ill, be allowed the option of physician-assisted suicide? According to the First Amendment of The Constitution of The United States, "one hasthe freedom to petition the government for a redress of grievances." The Fourteenth Amendment states, "The Statecannot deprive any person of life, liberty or property, without due process of law; nor deny any person within itsjurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." The group believes that a terminally ill patient has the Constitutionalright to decide whether or not to end his or her life with the help of a licensed medical doctor. There have been many cases overthe years where a terminally ill patient who is mentally competent has made the choice to either partake in physician-assisted suicide or euthanasia.
"Physician-assisted suicide occurs when the physician provides thepatient with the means and/or knowledge to commit suicide"(Death and Dying,91). "Euthanasia is when the physicianadministers the death causing drug or agent"(Death and Dying,92). The most recent case is that of The Stateof Florida v. Charles Hall. "Charles Hall is dying of AIDS and challenged the State of Florida to let him die bya self-administered lethal injection without fear of prosecution"(http://www.rights.org/ deathnet/open.html). On January31, 1997, a Judge ruled that Charles Hall could take his own life with the aid of a doctor. Senior Judge S. JosephDavis, brought in from Seminole County, "found that Florida's strict privacy law and the equal protection clause in theU.S. Constitution entitled Hall, 35, and Dr. McIver to carry out an assisted death without fear of prosecution" (Sun-Sentinel,1A). On February 11, 1997, Charles Hall's ruling was overturned by the Florida Supreme Court: he no longer hasthe right to end his own life. He will have to wait until May 9, 1997 until new arguments will be heard. Hall, whohas been deemed mentally competent, contracted the virus in 1981 through a blood transfusion. "Some of the complicationshe is encountering from the AIDS virus are arthritis, hepatitis, pneumonia and a brain cyst" http://www.rights.org/deathnet/open.html). The Oregon Death with
Dignity Act allows terminally ill adults who are mentally competentto ask for a prescription for medication "for the purpose of ending his or her life in a humane and dignified manner"(http://www.rights.org/deathnet/open.html). This act, "Measure 16," was approved by the voters in 1994.
The Death with Dignity Act was passed in Oregon in 1994, and it is another option for dying with those who have terminal diseases. These people that want to die with dignity have to be seen by at least two doctors and have six or less months to live. While making the decision to use this act, the patient must be in a safe mental state to be making this decision. Currently, Oregon, Washington, Vermont, and soon to be California are the only states to carry the Death with Dignity Act. (Death)
In 1994, Oregon passed the Death with Dignity Act. This law states that Oregon residents, who have been diagnosed with a life ending disease and have less than six months to live, may obtain a lethal medicine prescribed by a physician, which would end their life when and where they chose to do so. This law or act requires the collection of data from patients and physicians and publishes it in an annual r...
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.
One Work Cited This essay will present the views of that worldwide organization named Hospice which has seen the quiet, natural death of millions of terminally ill patients - without the use of physician-assisted suicide. It is important that the voice of the largest caregiver for the terminally ill be heard, and listened to attentively. For they have the most experience. The Hemlock Society is nothing (in scope, importance, goals)in comparison to this great Hospice Organization (HO).
The Death with Dignity Act was approved by voters in Oregon in 1994 and was confirmed in 1997 when the law went into effect. It is a law that allows mentally competent, terminally-ill adults to voluntarily request a prescription medication
Did you know, about 57% of physicians today have received a request for physician assisted suicide due to suffering from a terminally ill patient. Suffering has always been a part of human existence, and these requests have been occurring since medicine has been around. Moreover, there are two principles that all organized medicine agree upon. The first one is physicians have a responsibility to relieve pain and suffering of dying patients in their care. The second one is physicians must respect patients’ competent decisions to decline life-sustaining treatment. Basically, these principles state the patients over the age of 18 that are mentally stable have the right to choose to end their life if they are suffering from pain. As of right now, Oregon, Washington, and Vermont have legalized physician assisted suicide through legislation. Montana has legalized it via court ruling. The first Death with Dignity Act (DWDA) became effective in Oregon in 1997. Washington and Vermont later passed this act in 2009, and Montana passed the Rights of the Terminally Ill Act in 2008. One concern with physician assisted suicide is confusion of the patient’s wishes. To get rid of any confusion and provide evidence in case someone becomes terminally ill, people should make an advanced care plan. The two main lethal drugs that are used during physician assisted suicide are secobarbital and pentobarbital. Appropriate reporting is necessary when distributing these drugs and performing the suicide in order to publish an analysis. Studies found a large number of people accepted this procedure under certain circumstances; therefore, physician assisted suicide should be legal in the United States because terminally ill patients over the age of 18 that are...
In her paper entitled "Euthanasia," Phillipa Foot notes that euthanasia should be thought of as "inducing or otherwise opting for death for the sake of the one who is to die" (MI, 8). In Moral Matters, Jan Narveson argues, successfully I think, that given moral grounds for suicide, voluntary euthanasia is morally acceptable (at least, in principle). Daniel Callahan, on the other hand, in his "When Self-Determination Runs Amok," counters that the traditional pro-(active) euthanasia arguments concerning self-determination, the distinction between killing and allowing to die, and the skepticism about harmful consequences for society, are flawed. I do not think Callahan's reasoning establishes that euthanasia is indeed morally wrong and legally impossible, and I will attempt to show that.
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 Death with Dignity Act (hereafter DWDA) allows terminally ill patients who are Oregon residents to obtain and use the prescription from their physician to self-administer lethal medications. Under the Act, ending one’s life is in accordance with the law and does not constitute as suicide. The Death with Dign...
Physician-assisted suicide should be a legal option, if requested, for terminally ill patients. For decades the question has been asked and a clear answer has yet to surface. It was formed out of a profound commitment to the idea that personal end-of-life decisions should be made solely between a patient and a physician. Can someone's life be put into an answer? Shouldn't someone's decision in life be just that; their decision? When someone has suffered from a car accident, or battled long enough from cancer, shouldn't the option be available? Assisted suicide shouldn't be seen as cheating death, but as a way to pay homage to the life once lived. As far as including the mentally challenged in this equation, I am against it. The mentally challenged, although less likely to grasp information, still has the physical awareness to grow. It can be subdued with medicine and psychotherapy. From personal experience I am a witness of being around mentally challenged adults who love life regardless of their conditions. Most don't have the ability to express a request such as life or death. Living life is a daily task just like it is for healthy citizens. Most if not all mentally challenged people aren't in any pain throughout their entire life. For this they shouldn't be targeted for assisted suicide. Death is an occurrence in life, whether it's unexpected or expected, it can't be cheated nor can it be avoided. The terminally ill should have the option to end their suffering with dignity.
My claim: I argue in favor of the right to die. If someone is suffering from a terminal illness that is: 1) causing them great pain – the pain they are suffering outweighs their will to live (clarification below) 2) wants to commit suicide, and is of sound mind such that their wanting is reasonable. In this context, “sound mind” means the ability to logically reason and not act on impulses or emotions. 3) the pain cannot be reduced to the level where they no longer want to commit suicide, then they should have the right to commit suicide. It should not be considered wrong for someone to give that person the tools needed to commit suicide.
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.
& nbsp ; 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.
Should a patient have the right to ask for a physician’s help to end his or her life? This question has raised great controversy for many years. The legalization of physician assisted suicide or active euthanasia is a complex issue and both sides have strong arguments. Supporters of active euthanasia often argue that active euthanasia is a good death, painless, quick, and ultimately is the patient’s choice. While it is understandable, though heart-rending, why a patient that is in severe pain and suffering that is incurable would choose euthanasia, it still does not outweigh the potential negative effects that the legalization of euthanasia may have. Active euthanasia should not be legalized because