Euthanasia And Physician Assisted Suicide

Thesis: Physician assisted suicide and euthanasia ethical issues from the prospective of health care professionals and ethicists on both sides of the debate holding implications for the practices of critical care.

the problem is much more pressing than it has in the past, and both the

Physician Assisted Suicide/Dying is a medical practice surrounding the accelerated process of death among patients who – typically – have a terminal medical disorder that will either end the life of the patient, or have them live in suffering, pain, in a state of life they deem less than minimally good, or less than a life worth living. According to a study done in 1995, approximately 88 percent of physicians interviewed claimed that they had received at the very least, one request for PAS/D. (Maas, et al., 1996) As the practice becomes more commonly considered – and more importantly more commonly accepted – it is logical to assume these percentages will have increased. This increase due to not only more patient requests, but also due to the

Physicians Assisted Death, is a death made possible when a physician, provides a terminally ill patient with the appropriate means to terminate their life. In other words, the patient commits the death causing act (Class notes, 10/19). Though Physicians Assisted Death and euthanasia ultimately result in the same ending they are different. euthanasia is a death made possible when a patient who is unable to commit the death causing act by themselves, grants a physician the right to terminate a their life. Thus, the physician administers the lethal drugs. That difference plays a critical role in the legalization of physician assisted death and euthanasia. Currently there are several arguments for and against the legalization of physician assisted death and euthanasia.

This paper discusses why the U.S. should implement the availability of physician assisted suicide/death and voluntary euthanasia. It discusses countries that have this legally, how they do not abuse the fact, and the percentages of both physicians and patients that are affiliated with PAS/VE. It continues with the legal moral issues it has within the United States. It also touches on the majority of the opposing viewpoints and why they have no merit in stopping the allowance of PAS/VE in the states. The paper also discusses why PAS/VE are often requested by many patients that have debilitating diseases or syndromes.

Ezekiel Emanuel once said, “Physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia have been profound ethical issues confronting doctors since the birth of Western medicine, more than 2,000 years ago.” Physician assisted suicide (PAS) should be available as a dignified option for the terminally ill because it can be built in to the palliative care plan formulated by patient and Doctor, may alleviate some medical costs for the incurable, and it’s a moderated and humane way to end a person’s suffering.

Is physician assisted suicide ethical? Physician assisted suicide is an up and coming ethical question that examines a person’s right to their own death. Many people support physician assisted suicide, citing that it can save a lot of pain and suffering. Others claim that the concept of physician assisted suicide is a slippery slope. A slippery slope in the sense that if society accepts euthanasia as a rightful death for the terminally ill, they will potentially accept it for other ailments as well.

When discussing the topic of Physician Assisted Suicide, a controversial issue is the debate of whether or not it should be legalized in every state in our county. Physician Assisted Suicide also known as (PAS), refers to the act of when a terminally ill patient requests a lethal dosage of medication intended to end his or her life. This medication will typically be provided by a licensed physician. I believe that people who do not have a chance for long term survival should have the right to decide if they want to continue living a painful life. However, there are some people that disagree and refer to Physician Assisted self-inflicted murder, otherwise known as "Suicide".

In any discussion of physician-assisted suicide (PAS) it is important to differentiate between euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide. Although they may have similar goals, they differ in whether or not the physician participates in the action that finally ends life. In physician-assisted suicide the physician provides the necessary means or information and the patient performs the act (e.g. the physician provides sleeping pills and information about the lethal dose, while aware that the patient may commit suicide). However, in euthanasia the physician performs the intervention themselves. Currently, just four states (Oregon, Washington, Vermont and Montana) allow physician-assisted suicide.

Finding common ground on questions like euthanasia and Physician Assisted Suicide (PAS) will never be possible, given the strong religious convictions that many Christians, Jews and Muslims have always had against any form of self-destruction. For them, suicide is a sin and killing is always wrong, except of course in wartime situations or when the state has to use force in policing and maintaining order. Their views are based on the Bible or other sacred writings as well as strongly-held religious traditions and convictions, and therefore are not going to change quickly or easily. According to the U.S. Supreme Court, assisted suicide is not a right, and it remains illegal in most states. Liberal Oregon is one exception to this rule, and even though its law permitting PAS was challenged in the courts for many years, in the end the Supreme Court did not forbid the states from passing such laws altogether. Poor quality care in hospitals and nursing homes at the end of life makes suicide appealing to many people, especially those with painful and lingering terminal illnesses which contemporary medicine cannot cure. Many states since already allow patients to refuse treatment in these situations, to die without having to endure extraordinary lifesaving measures, and to withhold food and water from comatose and brain dead patients. Over the last thirty years, the overall trend has been increasingly liberal or libertarian in allowing individuals greater freedom of choice over how

Physician-assisted death has been a hotly debated subject in the later 20th and early 21st century. The subject of physician-assisted death and euthanasia brings about a multitude of ethical dilemmas and causes people to dig deep into personal morals and self-evaluation. In this paper the different types of euthanasia will be defined, Oregon’s Death with Dignity Act and similar the laws enacted in Washington, Montana, and Vermont will be assessed, and the roles and viewpoints of healthcare professionals will be discussed.

Physician-assisted suicide or PAS are deaths caused by a lethal dose of drug, such as barbiturate, that is prescribed by a physician. The physician does not administer the drug; instead, the patient is responsible for getting the prescribed drug in the pharmacy and taking the medication to end his or her life. This alternative option applies to patients who can make informed decision, suffer from an incurable illness, and experience intolerable symptoms (Canadian Virtual Hospice, 2015)).[Extra bracket] Through the years, many activists, particularly those with terminal illness, fought to legalize physician-assisted suicide in Canada. Among these people include: Sue Rodriguez, Gloria Taylor, and Gillian Bennett (CBC News, 2015). [I don’t think this helps your paper to list peoples names, not necessary] Sue Rodriguez, diagnosed with Amyotorphic Lateral Sclerosis or Lou Gehrig’s disease, brought the right to die campaign center stage in 1992. Now, twenty-one years after her death, the Supreme Court of Canada made physician-assisted suicide legal by February 6, 2016 (Dying With Dignity Canada, n.d.). Despite the move toward legalization, however, the debate on this issue rages on among many Canadians. Some people are in favor of the change to protect the patient’s constitutional rights and autonomy, save healthcare dollars, and take away the guilt of a dying patient becoming a burden to their family, friends and healthcare professionals. Although these are reasonable arguments,

What is the single common denominator that unites all of humanity? That every person will die. Death is a macabre subject, but it is a universal one that entangles itself within our lives. Even while living, death is omnipresent, and it has remained unchanged throughout the ages. What have changed are the definitions of death and its timeline. The word euthanasia comes from the Greek for ‘good death’. While that definition is rooted in etymologic studies and not open for interpretation, the very idea of a ‘good death’ is quite the opposite. What is a good death? Who determines ‘good’? And the question that is under much debate and discussion: Should anything be done to make it so? That, in the form of physician-assisted suicide (PAS), is one of the pressing topics that faces healthcare today. It is imperative that healthcare professionals, particularly nurses who bridge the divide between physicians and patients, are aware of this issue and its components.

Albert Camus once quoted, “But in the end, one needs more courage to live than to kill them self.” Today I will be discussing the topic of Euthanasia also known as “assisted suicide.” The word originated from the Greeks, meaning “good death”. Euthanasia refers to the ending of one’s life, primarily to end suffering and pain. Euthanasia is a controversial topic and generates many political and religious debates. Although euthanasia is illegal in Canada, in some jurisdictions such as the Netherlands, Belgium, Switzerland and the American states of Washington, Oregon and Montana, euthanasia is a legal and common practice.

The lack of consensus; thereof, in American society on the ethical question of euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide could be attributed solely to the incredibly complexity and gravity of the issue. Therefore, in this study I will suggest, explore, and discuss that part of the ethical problem with euthanasia is under what circumstances, if any,