Euthanasia has become a very controversial topic in the medical field. The decision-making skill that physicians possess regarding the well-being of their patients is essentially the framework of their craft. Although they have been tempered and molded to preform medical decisions, physicians cannot make perfect decisions because of the influence by their humanity. Even though this may be, people are required to build a relationship with their physician in order to procure trust. Physicians have the expertise to instruct and intervene in the public’s health, but they cannot be allowed to actively euthanize patients.
As far as the law is concerned, physicians lack the right to actively interfere with the patient committing suicide. There is not a Supreme Court precedent giving physicians this right, and the Constitution is silent on the matter. The Fourth Amendment also forbids state governments to deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law (Kass 2). This translates to the fact that physicians would not be able to end life without some law process, and these law processes could not be concluded without some form of consent from the patient. Therefore, the physician would be unable to intervene on his own accord without breaking a law. Because of the nature of our political system, these questions of morality become restated in terms of people’s rights (Kass 1). The intervention by physicians would also breach individuals right to “life”. Even if the patient were to be considered mentally incapacitated, the fourteenth amendment also prevents the government from denying people equal protection of the laws (Kass 1-2)
Although this gives people the complete right to determine how they live, as a logic...
... middle of paper ...
... to request it themselves. Physicians have the knowledge and authority to intervene in health; however, physician-assisted suicide is a slippery slope that could only become a reality within a perfect world.
Works Cited
Columbia University, Press. “Euthanasia.” Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia, 6Th Edition (2013): 1.History Reference Center. Web. 19 Feb. 2014.
Emanuel, Ezekial J. “Death’s Door” New Republic 220.20 (1999): 15. MAS Ultra – School Edition.
Kass, Leon R. Lund, Nelson. “Courting Death: Assisted Suicide, Doctors, And The Law.” Commentary 102.6 (1996): 17. MAS Ultra – School Edition. Web. 26 Web. 26 Feb. 2014.
Selle, Robert. “Humanizing Death.” World & I 9.4 (1994): 423. MAS Ultra – School Edition. Web. 26 Feb. 2014.
Selle, Robert. “The Immorality And Morality Of Euthanasia.” World & I 9.4 (1994): 434. MAS Ultra – School Edition. Web. 26 Feb. 2014.
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,
Sloss, David. "The Right to Choose How to Die: A Constitutional Analysis of State Laws Prohibiting Physician-Assisted Suicide." Stanford Law Review. 48.4 (1996): 937-973. Web. 2 March 2015.
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.
Bernards, Neal, Ed. (1989). Euthanasia: Opposing Viewpoints. Opposing Viewpoints Series, Series Eds. David L. Bender and Bruno Leone. San Diego, CA: Greenhaven Press.
Callahan, Daniel. "Physician -assisted Suicide Should Not be Legal." Suicide: Opposing Viewpoints. Biskup, Michael. ed. San Diego. Greenhaven Press, Inc.1992.
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...
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.
Newman, E. (1996). Making the final choice: Should physician-assisted suicide be legalized? San Diego, CA: Truth Seeker Co., Inc.
Cotton, Paul. "Medicine's Position Is Both Pivotal And Precarious In Assisted Suicide Debate." The Journal of the American Association 1 Feb. 1995: 363-64.
[4] P. Allmark, "Euthanasia, dying well and the slippery slope," J. Adv. Nurs., vol. 18, pp. 1178-1182, 1993.
Urofsky, Melvin I. Lethal Judgments: Assisted Suicide and American Law. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 2000. Print.
Robert Matz; Daniel P. Sudmasy; Edward D. Pallegrino. "Euthanasia: Morals and Ethics." Archives of Internal Medicine 1999: p1815 Aug. 9, 1999 .
Larson, Edward J. “Legalizing Euthanasia Would Encourage Suicide” Euthanasia- Opposing Viewpoints. Ed. Carol Wesseker. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 1995. 78-83. Print.
I was very excited to take Death and Dying as a college level course. Firstly, because I have always had a huge interest in death, but it coincides with a fear surrounding it. I love the opportunity to write this paper because I can delve into my own experiences and beliefs around death and dying and perhaps really establish a clear personal perspective and how I can relate to others in a professional setting.
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