Physician Assisted Suicide (PAS) and euthanasia raise ethical questions about the medicalisation of death (J Hardwig, 2006; Kavanaugh, 2000) and whether it is worse to kill a patient, or to let them die through omission of treatment (Kavanaugh, 2000). All have the same outcome – the death of the patient – the ethical dilemma arise when considering how the patient’s death occurred (Rachels, 1975). Allowing a patient to die from the cessation of bodily function can be a distressing process and can extend the suffering of that patient (Brock, 1992) However, ending a patient’s life prematurely appears to contradict the medical profession’s objective, namely the Hippocratic Oath, and has further reaching consequence in the community.
The increasing ability to prolong life has created an effect termed ‘the medicalisation of death’ (J Hardwig, 2006; Stringer, 2007). In ‘The Hour of Our Death’, Aries (Aries, 1981) discusses the changing conceptions of death as more often a patient is perceived as being surrounded by tubes and machines instead of in more comfortable surroundings when they die. The concept of an idyllic death leads us to question when and how the best time to die is. Through having control of our deaths, euthanasia instils the idea that a more pleasant death is achievable.
Rachel’s (Rachels, 1975) argues the inappropriateness of the Hippocratic Oath for the reason that being allowed to die can be a slow process. Therefore, by not killing the patient, the physician and caregivers are causing suffering to that patient. In certain circumstance I would agree that the intention of the killing, for being to relieve suffering, absolves the physician or caregivers of guilt normally associated with the act of killing.
...
... middle of paper ...
...ing people to be killed instead of aiming to heal.
Personal judgements regarding others choice to die of natural causes or to be euthanized should be reserved, especially if the patient is choosing to no longer be a burden on their loved ones because this too is a valid reason in some circumstance. We all die in an innumerable amount of ways and our autonomous decision to choose Active Euthanasia or PAS should be respected as should our choice to refuse euthanasia. The act of killing a patient, who has chosen to have a quick death, in my opinion, does not have the same ethical implications as letting a patient die when that patient can no longer bear living. I conclude that it is usually better to kill a patient if their life has become unbearable and they foresee no recovery of an acceptable quality of life, rather than to prolong the life which is unwanted.
The ongoing controversy about Physician assisted suicides is an ongoing battle among physicians, patients and court systems. The question of whether or not individuals have the “right” to choose death over suffering in their final days or hours of life continues to be contested. On one side you have the physicians and the Hippocratic Oath they took to save lives; on the other you have the patients’ right to make life choices, even if that means to choose death to end suffering. The ultimate question “is it ethical for a physician to agree to assisted suicides and is it ethical for a patient to request assisted suicide?
EX1 Moreover, a good example of the irrelevance of the Oath in modern medics is the statement that a doctor may never “use the knife”, without using knifes, practicing modern surgery would be impossible (Markel, 2004). CR2 In the most Oaths administered by US medical schools, the parts about euthanasia are simply omitted, EV2 by 1993 only 14 percent of the vows taken by students prohibited euthanasia (Markel, 2004), IC this demonstrates that even if the Hippocratic Oath is the moral touchstone of physicians, most Oaths taken by students do not even prohibit euthanasia. CR3 Sometimes in order to safeguard the mysterious power and dignity of life, it is better to administer a soft death to avoid further suffering, EV3 this is also literally stated in the Hippocratic Oath: “I will keep my patients from harm and injustice”(Edelstein, 1967). C Considering all of the reasons mentioned above, the Hippocratic Oath has clearly lost its relevance regarding the prohibition of
Euthanasia - Pro and Con & nbsp; Abstract & nbsp; This paper will define Euthanasia and assisted suicide. Euthanasia is often confused with and associated with assisted suicide, definitions of the two are. required. Two perspectives shall be presented in this paper. The first perspective favor euthanasia or the "right to die," the second perspective. favor antieuthanasia, or the "right to live". Each perspective shall. endeavor to clarify the legal, moral and ethical ramifications or aspects of euthanasia. & nbsp; Thesis Statement & nbsp; Euthanasia, also mercy killing, is the practice of ending a life so as to.
article, is to explain to the physician’s about the certain steps and protocols that are
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...
A patient no matter how bad the terminal illness and suffering will be bound by nonmaleficence, so she cannot harm herself, let alone ask to be killed through voluntary euthanasia. A healthcare professional that is practicing deontological ethics will also be bound by nonmaleficence as the ultimate duty, and cannot do injury to others and fidelity of the duty to keep promises will also come into play since doctors swear an oath to do no harm, so he will not be able to comply with the patient’s request for voluntary
When it comes to the topic of euthanasia the four ethical goals of health care providers are in direct conflict with one another. An argument can be made that both permitting and preventing euthanasia violates one of those four principles which are as follows: beneficence, non-maleficence, autonomy, and justice. Perhaps the biggest conflict is between the principles of autonomy and non-maleficence. When it comes to PAS we cannot allow our patients to act autonomously while at the same time making sure to do no harm. In addition the Hippocratic Oath serves as a large roadblock on the way to legalizing PAS. The Hippocratic Oath is an oath taken by healthcare providers at the beginning of practice outlining obligations and proper conduct of providers. The Hippocratic Oath is based on the maxim “do no harm” and more specifically it states “neither will I administer a poison to anybody when asked to do so, nor will I suggest such a course”. American medicine traditionally succumbs to this oath and has therefore made PAS illegal. It is important to note, however, that this Oath was written thousands of years ago and it may need to be revised in the face of both e...
The discussion of physician-assisted suicide is frequently focused around the ethical implications. The confusion commonly surfaces from the simple question, what is physician-assisted suicide? Physician-assisted suicide can be defined as a circumstance in which a medical physician provides a lethal dose of medication to a patient with a fatal illness. In this case, the patient has given consent, as well as direction, to the physician to ethically aid in their death (Introduction to Physician-Assisted Suicide: At Issue,
Euthanasia and assisted suicide is known as a process in which an individual (sick or disabled) engages in an act that leads to his or her own death with the help of physicians or family members to end pain and suffering. There are several other terms used for this process, such as active euthanasia or passive euthanasia. Active euthanasia refers to what is being done to actively end life while passive euthanasia is referred as eliminating a treatment that will prolong a patient’s life, which will eventually lead to death (Levy et al., 2103, p. 402). Euthanasia and assisted suicide pose a significant ethical issue today, and understanding the issue requires examining the different principles, such as the ethical issue, professional code of conduct, strength and limitations, autonomy and informed consent, beneficence and nonmaleficence, distribution, and confidentiality and truthfulness.
“If you truly believe in the value of life, you care about all of the weakest and most vulnerable members of society.” This thought-provoking quote by Joni Eareckson Tada conveys a sense of obligation held by society to take up the roles of caretakers for the ones that cannot aid their own health. In the relativity of physician-assisted suicide, the word “care” in the previous statement is defined by helping those in need, in this case, pertaining to health issues with a potentially terminal outcome. When analyzing this controversial subject, one must consider all aspects of the medical context as well as the ethical conviction that pairs with it. Should terminally ill patients have the right to a physician-assisted suicide simply to protect their civil liberties? Or is this option just a devised method opposing the purpose of doctors and physicians and the morals of civilization playing the role of a scapegoat and devaluing human life? Although on the surface, physician-assisted suicide for patients in critical condition appears to be a plausible remedy, when further inspected, a practical perspective arises saying this so-called final solution is morally and ethically wrong considering the responsibility of medics, society, and law makers.
"I will never give a deadly drug to anybody if asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect". A frequent quoted portion of the Hippocratic Oath, written in Greece sometimes during the fifth to forth centuries B.C.E, represented an effort by an apparently small group of physicians to build public respectability by distancing themselves from other physicians who commit assisted suicide. It has had considerable influence in the history of Western medical society and now, once again, physician-assisted suicide has become a major ethical issue in medicine, as well as an issue that involves law and public interests. Of the various issues at the medicine issue, perhaps none has drawn as much attention as assisted suicide. This topic is being discussed with great frequency in newspaper, journals and books about whether it is really necessary and ethical to physicians to participate in this life-ending act. Proponents or advocates of physician-assisted suicide argue that each person has freedom over their own life. Persons whose quality of life is nonexistent and who are having a terminal illness should have the right to decide to seek assistance. In contrast, opponents say that physician-assisted suicide is not an acceptable practice for the physicians legally as well as morally.
Whose life is it, anyway? Euthanasia is a word that means good death. Euthanasia normally implies that the act must be initiated by the person who wishes to commit suicide. But, some people define euthanasia to include both voluntary and involuntary termination of life. Physician assisted suicide is when a physician supplies information and/or the means of committing suicide (lethal dose of sleeping pills or carbon monoxide gas) to a person, so that they can easily terminate their own life.
The history of Physician Assisted Suicide (P.A.S.), first known as the practice of active euthanasia., dates back as early as 500 B.C to Classical Greece (Osborn). From Classical Greece to today, the root of Greek medicine has stemmed from a Greek physician named Hippocrates. Hippocrates is famously known for creating the foundation of the Hippocratic Oath, which is a document physicians abide by to determine moral and ethical conduct (Tyson). The Hippocratic Oath is a promise physicians make “to do everything possible to help their patients” and to relieve patients of suffering (Cambridge University). Over the past 2,515 years, the controversial issue of Physician Assisted Suicide has continued to resurface. The question of whether or not
Euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide has been a hot topic of debate for quite some time now. Some believe it to be immoral, while others see nothing wrong with it what so ever. Regardless what anyone believes, euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide should become legal for physicians and patients. Death is a personal situation in life. By government not allowing euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide they are interfering and violating patient’s personal freedom and human rights! Euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide have the power to save the lives of family members and other ill patients. Euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide should become legal however, there should be strict rules and guidelines to follow and carry out by both the patient and physician. If suicide isn’t a crime why should euthanasia and assisted suicide? Euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide should be legal and the government should not be permitted to interfere with death.
... 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.