Physician Assisted Death Effect

The Declaration of Independence stated, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” This shows that all Americans are secured with indisputable rights which must include the right to live life as well as end it if need be. Even though Physician Assisted Death is not listed in the Constitution, the Tenth Amendment states that “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” However, in forty-four states, terminally-ill patients do not have the right to die. Physician Assisted Death is when a terminally-ill patient undergoes counseling before a trusted doctor can prescribe a lethal dose of drugs for the patient to terminate his life peacefully. Having Physician Assisted Death available as an option to terminally-ill will allow patients to exercise their inalienable right to the pursuit of happiness, relieve them from unbearable pain, and lessen the agony of the patient’s family.

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)

Physician-assisted suicide is “the voluntary termination of one's own life by administration of a lethal substance with the direct or indirect assistance of a physician. Physician-assisted suicide is the practice of providing a competent patient with a prescription for medication for the patient to use with the primary intention of ending his or her own life” (MedicineNet.com, 2004). Many times this ethical issue arises when a terminally-ill patient with and incurable illness, whom is given little time to live, usually less than six-months, has requested a physician’s assistance in terminating one’s life. This practice with the terminally ill is known as euthanasia. Physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia is a controversial topic

In our country the premise of physician assisted death conjures images of suicidal madmen, hell bent on death and mayhem. The reality is, that could not be farther from the truth. So why is there a stigma on assisting patients with taking their own life? Others look at this as a dignified means to those suffering a terrible fate. There are many issues that weight heavy on the difference between physician assisted and vs. natural death. Is it cruel to let a terminal ill patient who will suffer horrendously until nature take its course? Would it be more humane to allow a patient to pass peacefully without the suffering or enduring painful end? This report will examine physician assisted death

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

According to a poll in 2015, 68% of United States residents believe that physician assisted suicide should be legal (“In”). Physician assisted suicide (PAS) gives terminally ill patients a way to end their lives peacefully before they die from whatever terminal illness they have. If physician assisted suicide became legal, many people would be saved from pain and anguish. On top of that, ill people could retain some power and control over their life. And though bringing money into the discussion might be crude, assisted suicide can save millions. Physician assisted suicide should be legal in order to ensure a dignified death for terminally ill patients.

There has been a lot of talk over euthanasia. Some people are unaware of the difference of passive and active euthanasia and physician assisted suicide. This study will inform the readers of the differences and what is better for a patient and doctor to do. I believe that physician assisted suicide is the best moral option to go through in a case of a terminal illness.

Physician assisted suicide for the terminally ill is one of the most debated policies in America. Physician assisted suicide (PAS) is only considered a when a patient has a terminal illness and expresses their right to end their life with a physician. This scenario typically takes place when a patient is suffering severely from a terminal illness and it is only a matter of time before they will die. Advocates for PAS have typically had a loved one who is or was suffering through their final stages of life. Each individual state has specific laws and policies regarding the process of PAS; however, the requirements for a patient to be considered for PAS are similar (Death with Dignity, n.d.).

Thesis: When it comes to the topic of physician-assisted suicide (PAS), some experts believe that an individual should have the option of ending their life in the event that they have been given six months to live with a terminal illness or when the quality of their life has been vastly changed. Where this argument usually ends, however, is on the question whether physician-assisted suicide is medically ethical, would be overly abused to the point where doctors might start killing patients without their consent. Whereas some experts are convinced that just improving palliative care would decrease the need for someone to want to end their life before it happened naturally.

Physician assisted suicide- the voluntary termination of one’s own life by administration of a lethal substance with the direct or indirect assistance of a physician, and euthanasia, the painless killing of a patient suffering from an incurable, painful disease are both highly emotional and contentious subjects. Some argue physician assisted suicide (P.A.S.) is admissible for someone who is dying and trying to painlessly break free from the intolerable suffering at the end of their life, and some attempt to argue physician assisted suicide is not considered admissible because it violates the doctor’s Hippocratic oath and other reasons. From research, I believe, however, that there are some solutions that take sides with and against P.A.S. and euthanasia, but when they’re debated against each other there is a stronger argument for allowing the legalization and practices of P.A.S. rather than degrading the practice and prohibiting it.

Over the past 18 years, the controversy of Physician assisted death (PAD) has swept the world. Since 1997, four states in the united states have legalized PAD and several countries in Europe have passed similar laws. PAD is slowly becoming more and more popular among Americans, but for those people who are still highly opposed to the idea, why? Research has proven that PAD is not considered abuse because physicians are required to give their patients informed consent. Many terminally ill patients are requesting PAD and the choice to partake in the new phenomenon is completely up to the patient, even after the pills are administered. The prerequisites are many and the majority of people in fact do not qualify. on

A woman is thrashing in bed and crying from the pain her illness is causing her to feel. Her family rushes to find a nurse nearby to administer pain relieving medication. A nurse comes by to give palliative care to the woman that’s in agony. However, the strongest medication that’s at hand cannot relieve the pain without overdosing the patient. The terminally ill patient now has to live with intractable pain for the remaining days of her life. Physician Assisted Death is sometimes necessary in case state-of-the-art palliative care no longer works on the cancer patient. Terminal patients should have the option to control the circumstances surrounding their inevitable deaths with Physician Assisted Death to treat the pain.

Physician-Assisted Suicide which is also known as PAS has been a topic that has been highly debated for years, it gives patients in critical medical conditions the right to end their lives. Many people think that PAS and euthanasia are the same, while both actions include medications in lethal doses, Physician Assisted Suicide is when a doctor makes a patient’s death less difficult by providing him or her with a lethal dose of medication such as barbiturates or a combination of medications to allow the life ending act or to refrain the patient from receiving treatments that are used to prolong a terminally ill patients life. The physician lends the knowledge but the person does the act. While, euthanasia is when someone actually administers

Physician assisted suicide is not something that anyone can use, it is for terminally ill patients only. Some state’s death with dignity law makes it so that you have to be terminally ill and receive permission from a judge before acting on the law. If there are regulations as to who can use it and how to be able to use it, I believe this would be a great thing for many people. It would end the suffering of the terminally ill and picking when they would die would allow their family to know when it would happen so they could say their goodbyes. It would also allow for everyone to come together and be supportive of one another, not have family or friends in different areas just hoping to get there in time to say goodbye.

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.’