PAD: A Case Study

In life, there is a cycle of life that everyone follows, however, there will be a time when sudden situations come and one is forced to make life changing decisions. One of the decisions is Allowing someone to die, what this means is simply there is a crucial decision in life that for any reason this is the only one that matters. It all comes down to an irreversible and incurable choice that needs to be made.

Active euthanasia should be permitted as a medical treatment to allow people the right to die with dignity without pain and in peace. Euthanasia, also known as assisted suicide or mercy killing, takes on many different forms. When most Americans think of euthanasia, they think of a specific form that is referred to as “active euthanasia” which means to actively do something that will end a patient’s life with or without that individual’s consent. When euthanasia is performed in an involuntary manner it is usually because the patient is comatose, unconscious, or otherwise unable to communicate whether or not they want to have their life prolonged through artificial means. In such cases, the physician makes an

Critics of PAD have expressed concern about abuse and error in assisted death, but less so about the same margins when it comes to the withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment. They say that there is a clear difference between the act of ending one’s life and simply withdrawal of treatment. (K) However, it is also important to note that this does not mean that those against PAD are for preserving life at all costs, as witnessed by withdrawing care that does no more than prolong suffering. (F) Proponents argue that the act of withdrawing life-sustaining treatment is just as likely to lead to death as a physician giving a lethal dose of a substance, so why are physicians legally required to respect one choice, but not the other? (K) The end result of PAD is comparable to actions that are legally performed by physicians, such as aggressive palliative care, and withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment. (K)

While many Americans assume “assisted suicide” or physician aid-in-dying (PAD) is unethical, they may not be fully aware of what it is and how it helps people. Imagine a loved one of yours was near the end of their life. The doctors predict only six months or less remain of their life and these next six months will consist of excruciating pain and will be almost too unbearable to comprehend. As the six months progress this person will lose the ability to eat. They will be forced to a diet of flaky ice chips which will put them in a state of relentless hunger making their body weaker and more painful than it had been before. They will also lose the ability to care for themselves and will find themselves relying on family members or complete strangers at times to care for their most private needs. After all this treatment, pain, embarrassment, and utter helplessness the patient will feel as if they have lost their dignity, they will feel as if they are a burden to everyone around them and will even become depressed in some cases. If the loved one lives in Washington State, Oregon, or Vermont they will then be faced with two options regarding the next six hypothetical months they can decide to take on the most unbearable six months of their life or they can resort to an alternative called “Death with Dignity” in which they will be administered a dose of medication from their physician that will take their life. The process is painless and can only be administered to patients

Physician assisted death is an option available to all terminally ill residents in, California, Colorado, Vermont, Washington, and the District of Columbia; and there are many reasons why the remaining forty-five states in the United Sates need to make this an option as well. One of the major arguments between supporters for the legalization of PAD and its opponents is, palliative care. Ball notes organizations such as the AMA, who is the largest medical professional association in the world, believe that a physician’s duty is to provide terminally ill patients with support, counseling and hospice care until that patient’s death, not assist them in dying (37). Although palliative care does help terminally ill patients manage their pain, it

The four principles of medical ethics include nonmaleficence, beneficence, autonomy, and justice. These principles were created by Beauchamp and James Childress because they felt these four were the building blocks of people’s morality. Nonmaleficence is to do no harm to others. Beneficence is to care or help others. Autonomy is to respect another’s wishes. These four principles relate to issues surrounding physician-assisted death in many ways. To begin, there are seven individual forms of PAD. They are the following; voluntary passive euthanasia, nonvoluntary passive euthanasia, involuntary passive euthanasia, voluntary active euthanasia, nonvoluntary active euthanasia, involuntary active euthanasia, and physician-assisted suicide. Passive euthanasia is an act in which the health care physician withholds treatment or surgery and the result is the patient’s death. An example of passive euthanasia is a cancer patient refusing treatment and the physician agrees with their decision, therefore the patient dies from the lack of intervention to treat their illness. Active euthanasia is an act in which the health care physician has a direct contact with the patient’s death due to the physician’s act of doing something to the patient in order for them to die. An example of active euthanasia is an injection of potassium chloride. Voluntary is when the patient is requesting assistance to die. Nonvoluntary is when the patient is not requesting assistance and their wishes are unknown

A patient has to judge his or her own quality of life, making the action of assessing if a patient’s quality of life is so low that they should be considered for PAD. Although dogs and humans are very different creatures, anatomically and spiritually, PAD is the same concept of putting a dog to sleep. Both beings are loved by others greatly and both experience a low quality of life when they are ill. But why is it better to put dogs down when they are suffering, but it is not ethical for it to be done when a human is suffering? 7.6 million companionship animals were put down last year (2014) (ASPCA). The same idea and process are behind PAD. Physician Assisted Death is not abused by physicians, despite what many people believe PAD is very uncommon, even in states where it is legal. “Approximately 1 of 1,000 Oregonians obtain and use a lethal dose of medication; 17% personally considered it as an option.” (Lachman). But America is not the only place where is a controversy. “85% of 218 nurses in Australia carried out the request the physician’s request for active euthanasia” (Lachman), and “10,000 citizens of the Netherlands, where PAD is legal,

Dating back from the 5th century, the Ancient Greeks and Romans believed that the right to decide your fate belonged solely to one's self. They chose voluntary death over continuous suffering because they believed they owned the right to decide how to die. Physicians often gave their "hopeless" patients poison by their demand (Manning, 1998.)

While many believe that science sanctions physician assisted suicide, it is necessary to recognize the limits of science’s influence in our lives. “The notion that science should dictate our entire worldview, including our morality, has a long pedigree and remains prominent today” (Weikart 6). Despite science apparently telling us that physician assisted suicide is principled, it is important to realize that science should not direct our morality and view of ethics. Weikart explains, “We should firmly reject the idea that science has anything to say to us about what we should do, how we should live, or when we should die” (6). Utilizing science as a justification for physician assisted suicide is immoral. We must use the values of science to improve the quality of life, not take a life. Furthermore, many notable health organizations have come forward in opposition to physician assisted death, stating that physician assisted death contradicts their code of ethics. “The American Medical Association (1996) ethics code advises that PAD is inconsistent with the primary role of physicians to heal: ‘Instead of participating in assisted suicide, physicians must aggressively respond to the needs of patients at the end of life.’

Physician assisted death (PAD) is the voluntary termination of one’s own life by the administration of a lethal substance with the direct or indirect assistance of a physician. PAD is a topic of discussion where one side believes that it will cause more harm than good because it conflicts with the physician's role as a healer, very difficult to control, and would pose a societal risk. While the other side believes that patients have the right to do what they want to their bodies and to end their suffering if they are terminally ill. Now there are plenty of other arguments for both sides and the two arguments make strong cases. For example, some say that the patient’s pain and suffering will end, patients

As humans, we have the right to life. In Canada, in section 7 of our Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Canadians can expect “life, liberty and security of the person.” This means not only to simply exist, but have a minimum quality and value in each of our lives. Dying is the last important, intimate, and personal moment, and this process of dying is part of life. Whether death is a good or bad thing is not the question, as it is obviously inevitable, but as people have the right to attempt to make every event in their life pleasant, so they should have the right to make their dying as pleasant as possible. If this process is already very painful and unpleasant, people should have the right to shorten the unpleasantness. In February of this year, judges declared that the right to life does not mean individuals “cannot ‘waive’ their right to life.” Attempting suicide is not illegal in Canada, but the issue here is for those whose physical handicaps prevent them from doing so, and to allow access to a safe, regulated and painless form of suicide. It is a very difficult, sensitive and much-debated subject which seeks to balance the value of life with personal autonomy. In this essay, I will argue that the philosophical case for pro-euthanasia is more complete than those arguments against it due to the

As human beings who prize and value their autonomy, one feels entitled to choose at the end of one's life though no such power is present or possible at the beginning. Moreover, one cannot possess a 'right to die', at least not in the same way one is said to have the right to life. In fact, the very notion of the right to die is an absurd claim, because we all will die: this is an inevitable, undisputed fact of human life. What one really means to say is that one should have the right to die 'on one's own terms.' Yet, let us look at the right to life. If someone has an absolute right to life, then within that right is embedded the obligation or duty of others to respect and preserve this right. The 'right to die', if it is also said to be a right in this sense, it must also imply an obligation to the person who has claim to this right. So, others, doctors or family members, would have the obligation to kill someone who makes a stable, competent request for death. This, of course, would have serious implications for health care providers - particularly with regard to what end of life care really

Today, voluntary euthanasia is getting closer to being legalized in more than just one state in the United States. “‘Voluntary’ euthanasia means that the act of putting the person to death is the end result of the person’s own free will” (Bender 19). “ Voluntary euthanasia is an area worthy of our serious consideration, since it would allow patients who have exhausted all other reasonable options to choose death rather than continue suffering” (Bender 19). The question of whether or not voluntary euthanasia should be legalized is a major debate that has been around for years. Because the issue of whether people should have the right to choose how they want to live or die is so complex. With the advances in technology today we have made

This highly debatable topic amongst families, lawyers, and doctors questions the ethical viewpoint of whether people have the right to die in a method and time of their own choosing. The right to die is the most personal choice one can make. If people can make considerably, irreversible choices like to have an abortion or a sex change, then why are they being stripped of their right to die? If

If patients don’t get the right to choose, they might refer to illegal methods to die or even commit suicide.