The right to assisted suicide is a heavily controversial and debated over topic that concerns people all around the United States. The arguments go back and forth about whether a dying patient has the right to end their life with the assistance of a doctor or physician. Some people are against it because of moral and religious reasons. Others are for it because of their compassions and respect for unhappy patients waiting to die naturally. 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 performing euthanasia. It is sad to think that there are so many people in pain, waiting to die but …show more content…
It states in the Bill of Rights of Patients that it is a person’s right to be treated for illness and refuse treatment, if it is what they want. Many doctors and physicians assert that patients should be allowed to end their lives as part of their right to autonomy. In addition, they say that since the act relies on the decision of the patient who can either go through with it or decide not to, it is not an influenced option. “There must be safeguards that the person concerned genuinely wants to end their life and are not being pressurized into it or have it done without their knowledge and consent as would have been the case with me.” Stephen Hawking told BBC. Opponents say liberalizing the law could leave vulnerable people at risk. But, I believe, as well as other right-to-die advocates, say that people capable of making that decision should be allowed to die with dignity. There is some controversy about how it will be known that a person is capable of making this decision, but there is a long process that people with the wish of ending their life with doctor assisted suicide have to follow in order to achieve their goal. To receive a prescription for lethal medication, there are a series of steps you must undergo. First, the patient must make 2 vocal requests to their physician, separated by at least fifteen days. Next, the patient must provide a written, witnessed request to his physician. Next, the …show more content…
A considerable amount of people who are pushing for the legalization of physician-assisted suicide say that there are terminally ill individuals who feel that they emotionally, physically, and financially drain members of the family because of their sickness. A dying person’s physical suffering can be most unbearable to that person’s immediate family. Whether successful or not, medicine has a high price attached to it. The cost in sometimes too much for the terminally ill family. A (competent) dying person is aware of this, and knows that every day the they are kept alive, the price continues to climb. “The cost of maintaining [a dying person]... has been estimated as ranging from about two thousand to ten thousand dollars a month.” (Dworkin 187). The cost of keeping a person alive is expensive, and most patients simply cannot afford this, so the cost is left to their families who also often times cannot afford to foot the bill. Ronald Dworkin says that “many people… want to save their relatives the expense of keeping them pointlessly alive..” (193) To leave the family in huge financial trouble is not a form of consolation that the patient wants. What is the purpose of putting a family through pain, both emotional and physical, and financially draining them if the end result is the same, death.
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
Assisted suicide should be legalized nationwide in the United States, because every human deserves a peaceful death. Assisted suicide is when person that has been told they are terminally ill and won’t survive, they can go to a doctor and get prescribed a medication that results in death. It’s not murder, it’s giving the person a chance to say their good byes and leave this world when they are ready to go. Not making them suffer and go on when they don’t want to.
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 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.
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....
...le pain to both the patient and to their families. 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.
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.
Physicians Assisted Suicide An Argumentative Essay Physicians Assisted suicide is a topic many people are not fully informed about. Physician assisted suicide, or PAS for short, is when a physician can legally prescribe medicine for a patient to take in order to medically kill themselves. I believe that PAS should be talked more about in order for more people to understand how bad or grave it can be to a family and to our world. PAS falls underneath the umbrella of euthanasia. ?
Critics to the idea of providing dying patients with lethal doses, fear that people will use this type those and kill others, “lack of supervision over the use of lethal drugs…risk that the drugs might be used for some other purpose”(Young 45). Young explains that another debate that has been going on within this issue is the distinction between killings patients and allowing them die. What people don’t understand is that it is not considered killing a patient if it’s the option they wished for. “If a dying patient requests help with dying because… he is … in intolerable burden, he should be benefited by a physician assisting him to die”(Young 119). Patients who are suffering from diseases that have no cure should be given the option to decide the timing and manner of their own death. Young explains that patients who are unlikely to benefit from the discovery of a cure, or with incurable medical conditions are individuals who should have access to either euthanasia or assisted suicide. Advocates agreeing to this method do understand that choosing death is a very serious matter, which is why it should not be settled in a moment. Therefore, if a patient and physician agree that a life must end and it has been discussed, and agreed, young concludes, “ if a patient asks his physician to end his life, that constitutes a request for
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
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.
Assisted suicide brings up one of the biggest moral debates currently circulating in America. Physician assisted suicide allows a patient to be informed, including counseling about and prescribing lethal doses of drugs, and allowed to decide, with the help of a doctor, to commit suicide. There are so many questions about assisted suicide and no clear answers. Should assisted suicide be allowed only for the terminally ill, or for everyone? What does it actually mean to assist in a suicide? What will the consequences of legalizing assisted suicide be? What protection will there be to protect innocent people? Is it (morally) right or wrong? Those who are considered “pro-death”, believe that being able to choose how one dies is one’s own right.
Life or Death? I see it fitting to start off by actually explaining what “Right to Die” is. The Right to Die is a principle based on a person’s choice to terminate their life or to endure voluntary euthanasia. The two Supreme Court cases that relate to the constitutional Right to Die are Cruzan by Cruzan V. Director, Missouri Department of Health and Washington V. Glucksberg . The first of these cases is based on the constitutional right of the state to interfere with medical decisions. Whether the state has a right to withhold the parent’s decision to remove life-sustaining support from their child. While the second case argues whether the state has a right to restrict a patient’s decision to partake in Physician Assisted Suicide.
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.
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