In the past couple of years, the debate regarding physician-assisted suicide (PAS) and euthanasia has become a major ethical issue in medical practice as well as an issue that involves the law and public policy. By definition, physician-assisted suicide is when a physician provides the necessary means (equipment or medication), or informs the patient of the most efficacious use of already available means, for the purpose of assisting the patient in ending his or her life.1-2 Euthanasia, also known as mercy killing, is the act or practice of killing or permitting the death of an individual suffering from a terminal illness or an incurable condition, in a relatively painless method.3 It is important to note that with PAS, the physician does not directly administer the medication to end life, instead they provide the medication and the patient performs the act themselves while in euthanasia another individual administers the medication regardless of patient consent or awareness. Currently in the United States (US), only 3 states have legalized PAS (Oregon, Vermont, and Washington) with 1 state (Montana) allowing for PAS via court ruling.4 Oregon was the first state to pass the Death with Dignity Act (DWDA) in 1994 followed by Washington in 2008 and Vermont passed an act relating to patient choice and control at end of life in 2013; allowing for terminally ill patients to obtain and self-administer physician prescribed lethal doses of medication to end their life as long as they have met all the pre-requisite qualifications and filled out the mandatory forms.4-5 In all the other states and territories of the US, completed or even attempted PAS is prohibited by law, is classified under various degrees of felony, manslaughter, or mur... ... middle of paper ... ...even if it is to reduce suffering. With modern technology and improvements in medical treatments, there are better ways to give individuals greater control and relief from suffering than by legalizing assisted suicide. Great improvements in palliative care and end-of-life treatment has been made to significantly decrease patient pain and suffering with terminal illnesses.12,14,16,18 Careful consideration of the effects legalizing PAS will have on patient care, how to protect at-risk individuals, and ways to effectively regulate patients and physicians from incorrectly utilizing the system is imperative. PAS is a slippery slope that risks a decreased respect for life, violates the ethical guidelines of medical practice, and opens the door for possible arguments in favor of euthanasia. Debating the pros and cons of the issue, the risks with PAS outweighs the benefits.
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.
As any individual can imagine, there is a lot of suffering and pain in most, if not all hospital settings. At times, no amount of medication or experimental treatment can change an individual’s mind on the quality of their life, such that the only way to end their suffering is to die, hence physician assisted suicide. Defined as a patient taking their own life with the help of a physician, this assisted suicide practice is highly controversial and illegal in most but California, Montana, Oregon, Washington and Vermont. Putting the law aside, the morality of the practice itself is still questioned.
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,
Imagine being diagnosed with a disease that is going to kill you, but then you learn that you cannot do anything to avoid the pain it will cause you. The palliative care you will receive will only be able to provide slight comfort. You look at the options and consult with your physician, and decide physician-assisted suicide, or PAS, is what you want. Within the last two decades, the argument regarding physician-assisted suicide has grown. While some believe that death should be "natural", physician-assisted suicide helps the terminally ill maintain their dignity while dying. Physician assisted suicide should be a viable option for those diagnosed with a terminal illness. It provides a permanent relief to the pain and suffering that is involved
The issue of physician assisted suicide has been around for quite a while. There has been many court cases on it to make it legalized but all of it has been struck down by the Supreme Court. What seem to be a lost cause in the past is now becoming a real possibility as America moves further into the twenty-first century. As citizens increase their support for PAS, many states are beginning to draft bills to legalize this cause, with tough restriction and regulation of course. In 1997, Oregon became the first state to legalized physician assisted suicide for the terminally ill. Soon after, three other states (Washington, Vermont, and Montana) follow Oregon’s footstep while two other states are inching closer to making this procedure legal. Even so, there are still many people against PAS and are constantly fighting this from becoming legal. With the rise of popularity on this issue, the debate on whether one has the right to end their life, and the morality of this issue are reason why the UTA community should care about this topic and why it is worth exploring the three position concerning PAS. In this paper, I will discuss the three main position on this debate: that physician assisted suicide should be illegal, that physician assisted suicide should be limited to terminally ill patient, and that physician assisted suicide should be available for everyone.
There are only three states that allow physician-assisted suicide: Washington, Oregon, and Montana. Oregon became the first by enacting the Death with Dignity Act which allows terminally-ill patients to end their lives through the voluntary self-administration of lethal medications, expressly prescribed by a physician for that purpose. (Oregon.gov) In November of 2008 Washington became the second and in December of the same year Montana agreed and became the third. A poll was given to Oregon physicians in 1999, nurses, and social workers in 2001. The majority of physicians 51% supported the death with dignity act, 48% of nurses were in favor, and 72% of social workers were in support. (Miller) These polls clearly show that the majority of voters are in support of Physician assisted suicide.
the decision to end their lives often turn to their physicians for advice. However, studies indicate that many physicians are unwilling to provide their assistance in suicide because it conflicts with their ethical beliefs and because it is illegal. The legalization of PAS is a sensitive, yet complicated, topic which is becoming more and more popular with America’s aging population and the terminally ill patients. PAS is a social issue which is here to stay. The legalization of PAS is continually being debated all over the United States and offers a potential for abuse. In 1994, PAS laws of Washington and New York were challenged in federal court and declared unconstitutional. Physician assisted suicide should not be legalized in any state.
Although many people are familiar with the term “physician-assisted suicide,” very few however, actually know what is meant by the term. The term “physician-assisted suicide” is one that has been commonly used among the public as well as those who are in medical fields and discussed heavily throughout the medical literature. Physician-Assisted Suicide illustrates the process of prescribing medications that are often lethal in nature to patients who in return who take the self-administered doses without any outside help in order to end their life (Chin, Hedberg, Higginson, & Fleming, 1999). There have been states such as Washington and Oregon who have legalized Physician-Assistant Suicide. However, under the Washington and Oregon Death with Dignity Acts the term has been coined, “physician aid-in-dying (Chin, Hedberg, Higginson, & Fleming, 1999).” There have been much debate over what words to use but all seems to agree that it depends on how you feel about this issue and what side of the case you are on (Chin, Hedberg, Higginson, & Fleming, 1999).
Should euthanasia be allowed or not? It has become a very controversial issue nowadays. Velleman and Hooker have different perspectives on euthanasia, and whether there should be laws permitting voluntary and non-voluntary euthanasia. Although there are well-reasoned arguments on both sides, I would strongly agree with Hooker's argument that there should be a law permitting voluntary euthanasia when it is for the wellbeing of the person and that each individual should be able to make their own decision.
Oftentimes when one hears the term Physician Assisted Suicide (hereafter PAS) the words cruel and unethical come to mind. On October 27, 1997 Oregon passed the Death with Dignity Act, this act would allow terminally ill Oregon residents to end their lives through a voluntary self-administered dose of lethal medications that are prescribed by a physician (Death with Dignity Act) . This has become a vital, medical and social movement. Having a choice should mean that a terminally ill patient is entitled to the choice to pursue PAS. If people have the right to refuse lifesaving treatments, such as chemo and palliative care, then the choice of ending life with PAS should be a choice that is allowed.
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.
Majority of US states have capital punishments (Proquest n.pag.). The 36 states that allow death penalties all offer lethal injection as a method of execution for those convicted of heinous crimes (Snell 3). Specifically, “Of the 43 executions carried out in 2012, all were by lethal injection” (Snell 3). Ending the life of a criminal is entirely legal, however, ending the life of an anguished patient is only legal in several foreign countries and “3 US states, as of March 2013” (Ho n.pag.). Criminals of crimes such as aggravated murder, killing a police office, and kidnapping all get to die painlessly and peacefully (Snell 5); yet those who have lived an innocent life who now undergo severe pain have to suffer through and die dependent on machines to live their lives for them. If a physician advises or aids a patient in ending his or her life, he could be convicted and punished with a penalty equal to that of first-degree manslaughter (Wolfe n.pag.). It seems that US priorities on the equality of end-of-life care are misguided and tyrannical. In order to ease the dying’s suffering, along with protecting their dignity and independence, Physician Assisted Suicide, (PAS) and Euthanasia should be legalized in the US as an option for the terminally ill who meet the requirements.
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.
He is suffering from a terminal illness. He is bed ridden and in pain. You have heard the statistics and all the unpleasant details- you know that small cell lung cancer is incurable, but all you can do is helplessly watch him suffer. For all its advances, modern medicine has failed him with its lack of a cure or even relief from the suffering. There is such a small chance for your loved one’s survival. The only hope there seems to be is that death will overcome him and relieve him from his suffering. But death continues to evade him. And he continues to suffer.
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.