The Bill of Rights state in the eighth amendment, “ nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted”, so would it be considered cruel inflicted punishment to deny a person with a terminal illness and a few agonizing months to live the right to end their suffering sooner? A health care professional takes an oath to preserve life and wellness so assisting a person with suicide would jeopardize their ethical and moral duty to their profession. Also, take into consideration if it is appropriate that assisted suicide holds up the health professional ethical principles of beneficence, and autonomy for the patient. Suicide is a permanent solution to a temporary problem. Humans can not choose they way they were bought into this world, so shouldn’t the way you exit be your decision not the government; especially when you are dying of a terminal illness slowly?
Autonomy is the right of self-directing freedom and especially moral independence; this means that people have the right to make decisions for themselves. An example would be a patient refusing medical attention despite medical advice. With that should people have the right to choose the day of their death, if they are eligible? Eligibility may include terminal illness or an insufficient standard of living due to an accident or certain disease such as ALS. Some may argue that physician assisted suicide violates the Hippocratic oath, as they say a physician is to "do no harm," but is refusing a patient's autonomic and constitutional right die doing harm.
One procedure, known as Physician-Assisted suicide, alleviates suffering by having a physician provide a patient the means to painlessly kill him or herself. This procedure however, remains controversial and illegal in many states. This is unfair to patients who wish to be assisted in seeking death and escaping their terminal illness. Despite all of the benefits that are brought about because of Physician-Assisted suicide, people across America still seek to ban the practice because it clashes with personal moral and ethical beliefs. Although many people disagree with the procedure of Physician-Assisted suicide, it should still become legal because it alleviates suffering, allows patients to die in a dignified manner, and allows people to take control of the ultimate choice, death, away from their terminal illness.
Lois Snyder, Director of Center for Ethics at American College of Physicians, discusses reasoning aga... ... middle of paper ... ... drugs to help a terminally-ill patient end their life. Overall, suicide is displayed in the Oath as unethical, considering the Hippocratic author aims at preserving life and not harming the body. Therefore, if this document is used to influence modern medicine, it should be forbidden to allow physicians to assist patients in committing suicide using drugs or poisons. In conclusion, modern day ethics are beginning to stray away from traditional thoughts against suicide. It has now become a case of greed and selfishness when a person decides to take control of their own death with the help of a physician.
There are many aspects of PAS that validate it is an unethical and murderous act. Every one should determine the value of his or her life, but someone of greater power, not the doctor, should determine death. Physician-assisted suicide will always be a moral and ethical dilemma in the health care world, but death should be as natural as birth. All religions and cultures disagree with the practice of suicide. Legalizing it now would only contradict years of tradition and laws that the medical profession worked hard to maintain.
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.
2- Doctors may give a wrong diagnosis to a patient, and the patient may choose to go with euthanasia believing that they have a terminal illness. 3- Scientists would be discouraged to research new cures for terminal illnesses. Yet another popular argument against euthanasia is the medical ethics argument. Opponents of euthanasia quote a piece from the International Code of Medical Ethics that states 'A doctor must always bear in mind the obligation of preserving human life from conception '. They believe that legalizing euthanasia would encourage health professionals to abandon their empathy and compassion, and consider ending patients’ lives as just a routine administrative task.
Assisted suicide is decision that should be evaded. Euthanasia is diminishing the class of health systems and is being misused by people making wrong decisions. There are alternative arguments to the euthanasia debate. Some may say that it is understanding to allow one to die in certain circumstances however, there are alternative treatments for care such as palliative care and hospice. Many religions are against euthanasia.
The patients will have the understanding that if they cannot keep fighting the option is available. ¨ There is not more profoundly personal decision, nor one which is closer to the heart of personal liberty, than the choice which a terminally ill person makes to end his or her suffering and hasten an inevitable death¨ ( Sarah Henry, 1996, p. 10). If they are ready to end it, the option is available. They know the choice they make will affect them, but it also helps to know if they cannot go on they can tell the doctor and they will end it. ¨ Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations is the first religious group to pass in favor of Euthanasia for the terminally ill¨ ( Leading Issue Timelines, 2017, p. 8¨.
Often, when a patient is terminally ill, suffering and there is no hope of recovery that patient will be put into palliative care. This means that the patient’s comfort becomes the paramount concern for the medical practitioners, rather than the extension of life or cure of the disease. In these circumstances doctors will sometimes give patients drugs likely to have a negative effect on their longevity in order to relieve pain or distress (REF). Patients, or their next of kin if they are not capable, can also elect to forego treatment that would extend their life (ref). 1.2 Active Euthanasia Active euthanasia is when clear, intentional methods are used to terminate the patient’s life for reasons of compassion.