The American Medical Association (AMA) states that physicians should not participate in lethal injections because they are dedicated to preserving life. The AMA defines participation if the actions is able to be categorized in an action that directly, assists another, or automatically causes the death of a condemned prisoner (www.ama-assn.org). Dworkin would agree with the AMA’s guidelines to a physician's participation, however, even though Dworkin provides a somewhat compelling argument, it is our groups consensus that physicians need to take part in capital punishment procedures such as lethal injections. Physicians who fail to provide ineffective treatment to patients would be violating the principle of non-malefience, this is not the case with physicians who oversee or participate in lethal injections. The goal of a physician when administering lethal injections is not to intentionally harm the prisoner through blatant disregard of their well being, but rather to do the least harm possible throughout the medical procedure, as a physician would do in any other case regardless who the patients was. Raanan Gillion (1994) writes in the article, Medical ethics: four principles plus attention to scope, that “traditional …show more content…
Physicians that do choose to engage should at the very least oversee the operation and training. Having ill suited personnel perform the lethal injections could result in a situation such as the botched execution of Clayton Lockett. Let alone the fact that prisoners to be executed may have valid argument in claiming that if the procedure is not carried out or at least supervised by a physician it would be cruel and unusual punishment if administered by non-medically trained corrections officers. This does not guarantee that there will never be any troubled executions, but it does reduce this risk
As a result, life-sustaining procedures such as ventilators, feeding tubes, and treatments for infectious and terminal diseases are developing. While these life-sustaining methods have positively influenced modern medicine, they also inadvertently cause terminal patients extensive pain and suffering. Previous to the development of life-sustaining procedures, many people died in the care of their own home, however, today the majority of Americans take their last breath lying in a hospital bed. As the advancement of modern medicine continues, physicians and patients are going to encounter life-altering trials and tribulations. Arguably, the most controversial debate in modern medicine is the discussion of the ethical choice for physician-assisted suicide.
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...
In March of 1998, a woman suffering with cancer became the first person known to die under the law on physician-assisted suicide in the state of Oregon when she took a lethal dose of drugs. This law does not include people who have been on a life support system nor does it include those who have not voluntarily asked physicians to help them commit suicide. Many people worry that legalizing doctor assisted suicide is irrational and violates the life-saving tradition of medicine and it has been argued that the reason why some terminally ill patients yearn to commit suicide is nothing more than depression. Physician Assisted Suicide would lessen the human life or end the suffering and pain of those on the verge of dying; Physician Assisted Suicide needs to be figured out for those in dire need of it or for those fighting against it. The main purpose for this paper is to bring light on the advantages and disadvantages of physician-assisted suicide and to show what principled and moral reasoning there is behind each point.
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.
The Dr. Kevorkian case is important for medical ethics, because it brings up the issues of physician-assisted suicide and physician-assisted death. Physician-assisted suicide is where the doctor is assisting the patient in suicide, but the patient actually performs the act. Physician-assisted death, also known as euthanasia, is when the doctor does the act to bring about the patient’s death based on the patient’s request. This brings up the limitations of beneficence. Does a doctor have the right to end a patient’s life to relieve their suffering?
Ethical decisions are being made by terminally ill patients as they face death. Some are choosing to end life through PAS, physician-assisted suicide. Dr. Jack Kevorkian has been helping patients end life through his machines. The public opinion is the use of this machine is considered murder, but some have changed their thinking and created laws to make it legal for a physician to help a terminally ill patient die. Physician assisted suicide is a dignified way to end life.
Braddock and Tonelli. “Physician-Assisted Suicide.” Ethics in Medicine University of Washington Medical School. 2008. .
In the medical field, there has always been the question raised, “What is ethical?” There is a growing conflict between two important principles: autonomy and death being considered a medical treatment. Physician assisted suicide is defined as help from a medical professional,
In addition to lawfulness it is unethical. Doctors should not be given Legislative power to administer death since it can cause a slippery slope. For example, euthanasia is allowed in Netherlands for twenty three years and doctors have went from killing terminally ill who asks for it, to killing chronically ill who asks for it, and to newborn babies who are born with birth defects at their parents request. Furthermore, euthanasia might become the cost effective way treat people with terminal illness. For example, the patient might request euthanasia bec...
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.
Doctors prefer to never have to euthanize a patient. It is a contradiction of everything they have been taught for a doctor to euthanize someone, because a doctor’s job is to do everything in their power to keep the patient alive, not assist them in suicide. The majority of doctors who specialize in palliative care, a field focused on quality of life for patients with severe and terminal illnesses, think legalizing assisted suicide is very unnecessary. This is due to the fact that if patients do not kill themselves, they will end up dying on a ventilator in the hospital under the best possible care available, with people around them trying to keep them as comfortable as possible. Legalized euthanasia everywhere has been compared to going down a slippery slope. Officials believe that it could be done over excessively and the fear of assisted suicide numbers rising greatly is a great fear. This is why euthanasia is such a controversial subject worldwide. But, even though it is a very controversial subject, euthanasia is humane. Every doctor also has a say in whether or not they choose to euthanize a patient or not, leaving only the doctors who are willing to do this type of practice, for euthanizing patients. Medicine and drugs prescribed by a doctor for pain or suffering can not always help a person to the extent they desire, even with the help of doctors
Physician assisted suicide, is it ethically right or morally wrong? The global controversy becomes emotional as some argue that physician-assisted suicide contradicts moral reasoning to preserve life. Others argue that it is acceptable for a dying person to choose to escape unbearable suffering and to alleviate their pain. In order to choose a side of the controversy, one must understand the meaning of physician assisted suicide and what a terminally ill patient is. Physician assisted suicide occurs when a physician supervises a patient’s death by providing the necessary means for the patient to manage the death.
Physician-assisted suicide refers to the physician acting indirectly in the death of the patient -- providing the means for death. The ethics of PAS is a continually debated topic. The range of arguments in support and opposition of PAS are vast. Justice, compassion, the moral irrelevance of the difference between killing and letting die, individual liberty are many arguments for PAS. The distinction between killing and letting die, sanctity of life, "do no harm" principle of medicine, and the potential for abuse are some of the arguments in favor of making PAS illegal. However, self-determination, and ultimately respect for autonomy are relied on heavily as principle arguments in the PAS issue.
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. & nbsp; Every culture has a taboo against murder, including our own. The practice of physician assisted suicide is wrong across all religious and cultural groups. According to Leon R. Kass, M.D., the taboo against doctors killing patients, even on request, "is the very embodiment of reason and wisdom. Without it, medicine would have lost its claim to be an ethical and trustworthy profession. " Before a physician is allowed to practice medicine, he/she takes the Hippocratic Oath, which is described by Encyclopedia Britannica as, "a pledge to prescribe only beneficial treatments, according to his abilities and judgment; to refrain from causing harm or hurt".
People believe physicians should be able to aid in this process because they have valuable knowledge on how the body works, “… knowledge that can be used to kill or to cure” (Callahan 74). This argument contradicts the moral meaning of medicine. Indeed, the word "medical" comes from the Latin word “mederi,” which means "to heal." Medicine is understood to heal, cure, or comfort people, not kill. As a matter of fact, in the International Medical Code of Ethics and the American Nurses Association’s Code of Ethics fully states that the act of euthanasia violates their role and shall not be performed. Just because of the mere fact that physicians have the knowledge and medical equipment to kill does not indicate a physician should be permitted to perform euthanasia. Dan Brock states, “… permitting physicians to perform euthanasia, it is said, would be incompatible with their fundamental moral and professional commitment as healers to care for patients and to protect life” (77). Dan Brock also raises the question, if euthanasia became a common practice that was performed by physicians, would we eventually fear or lose trust in our physicians?