In today 's society one of the most controversial issues is physician-assisted suicide for the terminally ill. Many feel as though it is wrong, regardless of their health condition to ask their health care provider to end their life. Others feel it is their right to be able to choose how and when they die. For those who believe physician-assisted suicide should be their choice, they feel it should be legal because: they don 't want to go through the suffering caused by the life-threatening illness, they fear the loss of their independence, becoming a burden to their family and friends, and the fear of dying alone.…
Many people argue that physician-assisted suicide is unethical and suggests that the human life is not valuable; however, this is untrue. Physician-assisted suicide allows a suffering individual to feel a sense of dignity and power, even in his or her last moments in life. What is more valuable than that? While the situation might be unethical in the case that the patient had no say in his or her own planned death, physician-assisted suicide requires that the patient be fully aware of what they are choosing to do. There is nothing unethical about a fully competent individual choosing to end his or her life in a peaceful manner, rather than in agony. As an alternative to physician-assisted suicide, some physicians encourage patients to believe that refusing to eat or drink would be a better way to die. This method of suicide takes many days and causes the patient even more suffering than what he or she already has to endure. The symptoms of dehydration…
Rapid and dramatic developments in medicine and technology have given us the power to save more lives than was ever possible in the past. Medicine has put at our disposal the means to cure or to reduce the suffering of people afflicted with diseases that were once fatal or painful. At the same time, however, medical technology has given us the power to sustain the lives (or, some would say, prolong the deaths) of patients whose physical and mental capabilities cannot be restored, whose degenerating conditions cannot be reversed, and whose pain cannot be eliminated. As medicine struggles to pull more and more people away from the edge of death, the plea that tortured, deteriorated lives be mercifully ended grows louder and more frequent. Californians are now being asked to support an initiative, entitled the Humane and Dignified Death Act, that would allow a physician to end the life of a terminally ill patient upon the request of the patient, pursuant to properly executed legal documents. Under present law, suicide is not a crime, but assisting in suicide is. Whether or not we as a society should pass laws sanctioning "assisted suicide" has generated intense moral controversy.…
There are two factors that have contributed to euthanasia’s distinction with how the world is today. They are both an increasing sense of self-determinism and medical revolution that have the potential of prolonging human life (Michigan, 2006). People think that just because there are things like hospice and medication that euthanasia shouldn’t even be an option. But what people don’t know is that even with the best medication and the patient being made completely comfortable, it is not the pain that causes people to ask for what people call a “hastened death”, but the humiliation and suffering that accompanies most terminal disorders.…
Physician-assisted suicide is the intentional end of one's own life by the organization of a deadly substance with the immediate or backhanded help of a doctor. Some people support Physician Assisted suicide while others do not. In order, to develop a better understanding of this trending issue, we must first look at different perspectives and viewpoints while approaching the topic. These viewpoints are moral, practical, and legal.…
Physician-assisted suicide (PAS) and euthanasia is a widely debated and controversial topic in our society. It is believed that the principle of PAS and euthanasia portrays, “merciful acts that deliver terminally ill patients from painful and protracted death” (page 477, column 2). In the paper, “Physician-Assisted Suicide: A Tragic View,” John D. Arras discusses the subject and states that while he agrees with patients making decisions, implementing laws supporting PAS and euthanasia is a huge threat to our social order. However, John D. Arras also concludes that he does not disapprove with the possibility of having a legislative policy in favor of PAS/euthanasia, only if there is “sufficient evidence of reliability of various safeguards” (page 477, column 2).…
Should physicians be granted the power to intentionally end the lives of their patients? Recent proposals to legalize physician-assisted suicide have raised this question and triggered intense legal, medical and social debate. For some individuals, the debate is fueled by their fear that medical technology may someday keep them alive past the time of natural death. However, this concern is unfounded for mentally competent adults who have a legal right to refuse or stop any medical treatment. It is also important to recognize that today's health care climate lends itself more to undertreatment than overtreatment.…
In 1997, the Supreme Court ruled that patients do not have the right to Physician- Assisted Suicide under the constitution. However, the Supreme Court did not ban PAS (US Legal, Inc., n.d.). Later, in 2006 the Supreme Court ruled that laws related to Physician- Assisted suicide would be voted upon within each state. Currently, Physician- Assisted suicide is legal in five states in the U.S. including Oregon, Vermont, Washington and California where it is mandated by state law. Montana is mandated by court ruling. The first state to legalize physician assisted suicide was Oregon in 1994, followed by Washington in 2009. Arizona, Utah, Colorado, Nevada, Kansas, Minnesota, Idaho, Michigan, Tennessee, North Carolina, Maryland, New Jersey, New York,…
Most people would agree that the right of a competent, terminally ill person to avoid any unnecessary excruciating pain seems as though it should be a basic human right. To have someone go through more suffering than absolutely necessary seems as though it would fall under the description of an inhumane act, and frankly an injustice against the basic human right of bodily autonomy and integrity. Due to these almost undeniable arguments, physician assisted suicide, in many cases, is seen as a basic human right that we need to be granted access to. Activists argue that it is simply an additional choice that we will be able to make, and that it will surely never be pushed onto anybody or used sinisterly (Maynard 2014). Although this claim is something that we cannot be entirely sure of, as I have continued to research the pros and cons behind physician assisted suicide, I have come to the conclusion that in many cases it truly does seem that the legalization of physician assisted suicide is the best option for everyone involved. It is a means to cease any unnecessary suffering that a person may be going though, and provides a sense of comfort for them during a time in their lives where they are not given many choices besides to deal with what they are going through and try to survive. Additionally, with many of the extreme medical advancements of the 20t century, our goals have been clouded by the quest to…
From the beginning of its existence, the sole purpose of the health care industry is to increase the quality of life. However, when a patient’s life is coming to an end, healthcare professionals strive to provide a comfortable death with minimal pain. With today’s doctors having new technology, medicines, and techniques, the ethics of assisted suicide has become a great debate between the public, the government, and health professionals. Dr. David Mayo and Daniel Callahan are both professionals in the healthcare industry and have varying viewpoints in regards to the effectiveness, position, and purpose of assisted suicide.…
Physician assisted suicide is a widely spread controversial ethical issue. This paper is written in an effort to highlight some important points discussing whether assisted suicide should be legalized or not under certain circumstances. Various ethical and social factors that play key role in prohibiting and permitting the legalization of assisted suicide…
The slippery slope argument is amongst the strongest voiced and possibly the most emotive of arguments in opposition to legalising voluntary active euthanasia (VAE, the act of accelerating the death of another, usually by lethal injection, for their own good and with their consent). In fact, in discussion on practically any change in social policy it is common place to hear objections to the effect, "if this, then that, and finally that" . But how valid is this form of argument? To answer this question, I will examine the nature of the slippery slope argument in its two major forms (empirical and logical), see how it has been applied to the debate on permitting voluntary active euthanasia and determine the validity of these applications.…
Euthanasia is a social issue in today’s world because not only does it affect the lives of those who are terminally ill and/or comatose, and the physicians who have been entrusted with their care, but it also affects the patient’s ability to have control over their own life, whether they are aware of this decision or not, which is one of the reasons why euthanasia has become such a controversial issue around the globe. Caddell and Newton (1995) define euthanasia as “any treatment initiated by a physician with the intent of hastening the death of another human being who is terminally ill and in severe pain or distress with the motive of relieving that person from great suffering” (p. 1,672). Even though the concept of great…
The topic of Physician Assisted Suicide has become a well-known issue. But the fact is, for terminally ill and for those that cannot recover, Physician assisted suicide is not completely misguided. It gives those who are in a lot of pain a chance to save their loved ones the torment of seeing them so feeble. It also strengthens the possibility of saving those who can still be saved.…
Medical professionals already have many burdens throughout their medical path, adding the guilt of killing someone to the list is not fair for the healthcare professionals and the family members. Euthanasia is ethically and morally wrong because the doctors have to continue to find possible ways to treat the patient not to give the patient the option of choosing to die. The incident in “Britain with the nurses technically killing the patient could have been avoided” (Fenigsen, “Other People’s Lives: Reflections On Medicine, Ethics, And Euthanasia”). Although, some people might believe that ending the patient’s pain is ending their suffering, but many fail to realize the actual outcome if euthanasia were to be practiced. For instance, “If terminating life is a benefit, the reasoning goes, why should euthanasia be limited only to those who can give consent? Why need we ask for consent” (ProCon.org, “Top Ten Pros and Cons)”, the slippery slope a reality to…