Envision your loved one having so much pain that they no longer want to be alive, but they have no other option than to endure the pain they are going through. Imagine yourself feeling useless and incompetent,serving no purpose in the world where everybody is mobile, feeling like a burden to those around you. Well some people did not have to envision it, which is what happened with Mac in Barbara Huttman’s essay. Mac wanted the right to die, begging to be let go until his death. He had to suffer due to the fact that he had no choice but to do so. Huttman, his hospice nurse, who had to resuscitate him 52 times, no longer wanted to see him in agony and took it upon herself to help him end his life (815-817). With the legalization of physician …show more content…
While physicians are supposed to prolong life, both sides can agree that they are also there to ease suffering. Physicians “are not limited to healing,” as people from Geneva University Medical School noted (Martin, Mauron, and Hust 55).Utilizing PAS would allow physicians to ease the person’s suffering. Despite prolonging life, again opponents argue that there are other alternatives to PAS, for example, continuous deep sedation, a form of palliative care. It is a substitute, but stated in an essay, “PAS may be morally more acceptable than CDS” (Martin, Mauron, and Hust56). Regarding that, both sides can agree PAS is the last resort for many. Evidently others feel that due to the costs, “The incentive to save money by denying treatment poses a significant danger” (Golden 829). Money would influence a patient’s judgment, but if they qualify, it would help them more than jeopardize their situation. PAS would help the patients not leave their family in credit card debt. PAS would be the appropriate choice for the …show more content…
Having PAS gives patients the right to die as they choose to, in a humane way. Without PAS, patients may try another way to treat their pain, for example, suicide on their own terms. With PAS, patients would be able to end their lives in a peaceful way, and not in a horrific one. This way, the patients get what they want. Güth tells a story of a 54 year old woman who decided to kill herself by jumping in front of a train. This lady had a form of breast cancer and had just recently gotten news about her cancer getting worse. She had gone through palliative care, chemotherapy and nothing seemed to help. Jumping in front of a train 2 weeks after she found out she was diagnosed with more cancer, she took her life. She said her goodbyes to her loved ones through a letter she left behind (Güth et al 1040).With just the letter that the lady left in the aforementioned story, the family did not have any sort of closure with the way she was forced to end her life. PAS would be the ethical way to let the person go; it provides a compassionate death, and it leaves family members with closure about the inevitable. With PAS, this woman could have taken her life on her own terms, having a more appropriate death. In this same essay,Güth shows how people who are terminally ill, and are given the chance to utilize PAS, take it(Güth et al
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¨. The terminally ill should have the right to know if they are going to be allowed to end their lives if the fighting gets hard and to unbearable. They do not want to give up just to be on the road of a slow and possibly painful death. ¨ Between physician and patient concerning a request for assisted suicide be witnessed by two adults¨ ( Yale Kamisar, 1998, p. 6). The doctor´s are not going to just inject the patient with the killing drug. The patient has to be able to say for themselves and someone else has to be present when said, when gone over and when they are injected. The family can know their family member really wants to follow through with it and they have
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.
...ent dies. However, if the terminally ill patient did not use PAS the end result is the same. The patient will eventually die. A patient having autonomy is one of the most important rights that we are given in this life. It should not be taken away because some believe that PAS is not justifiable suicide.
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....
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
First of all, the “Right-To-Die” group and the Hemlock Society contend that terminally ill individuals have the right to end their own lives in some instances, and because PAS is illegal, many patients are unable to get the help necessary to terminate their lives and must involuntarily endure the extreme pain and suffering of their diseases. Others argue that PAS must be legalized...
One of the greatest dangers facing chronic and terminally ill patients is the grey area regarding PAS. In the Netherlands, there are strict criteria for the practice of PAS. Despite such stringencies, the Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs (1992) found 28% of the PAS cases in the Netherlands did not meet the criteria. The evidence suggests some of the patient’s lives may have ended prematurely or involuntarily. This problem can be addressed via advance directives. These directives would be written by competent individuals explaining their decision to be aided in dying when they are no longer capable of making medical decisions. These interpretations are largely defined by ones morals, understanding of ethics, individual attitudes, religious and cultural values.
The approach of physician-assisted suicide respects an individual’s need for personal dignity. It does not force the terminally ill patient to linger hopelessly, and helplessly, often at great cost to their psyche. It drive’s people mad knowing they are going to die in a short period of time, suffering while they wait in a hospital bed.
In closing, despite all of the different opinions that people have on PAS, there are many good outcomes that come with the decision. Having the right to make a “choice” is what PAS comes down to. Many argue that it is inhumane, while many will argue that it is a choice. If choosing PAS as a last dying right, then one should respect that choice. It is a choice and only the patient should have the right to choose.
If we allow PAS to be legal this is blur the lines of what ethics are. This will make it easier for other forms of euthanasia and mercy killing to be legal. Edmund D. Pelligrino, Professor Emeritus of Medicine and Medical Ethics, says
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.
Thesis Statement: Physician assisted suicide or euthanasia may offer an accelerated and pain relieved alternative to end someone’s suffering, therefore people should not be denied the right to die especially when faced with terminal illnesses.
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.