Physician Assisted Suicide Arguments

In Canada it has historically been a criminal offence to assist another person in ending his or her own life. This includes the inability of a person to seek a physician-assisted death. This law was recently overturned with the Supreme Court of Canada decision in Carter v. Canada (Attorney General)[1]. The main issue was whether the prohibition on physician-assisted dying found in the Criminal Code[2] violated the claimants' rights under sections 7 and 15[3] of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms[4]. The claimants defined physician-assisted death and physician-assisted dying as a "situation where a physician provides or administers medication that intentionally brings about the patient's death, at the request of the patient."[5]

Another aspect of physician assisted suicide is this procedure devalues the lives of those who are disabled. A family may feel that it would ease their financial burden if their loved one committed suicide and desired to aid them in the process. However, if those are not the true wishes of the individual, how can we put a price on a person's life, the only chance we will ever have to partake in this experience? For a medical doctor, there is a sense of obligation to the individual to ease their suffering. The conflicting problem is that the assisted suicides cannot be effectively and properly regulated; the lines are too fuzzy as to where we can draw the limitations.

Every individual has to make choices in life; life can be seen as a plethora of crossroads veering off into different directions with every which way. Choices that can create or destroy life; in the blink of an eye a life could end, but in the same moment a new life could be brought into existence. The choice of physician-assisted suicide provides control, familiarity, and closure to the terminally ill patients. The patient is able to choose where he or she will be, when the time is right, and the ability to be surrounded around loved-ones and gain closure by saying goodbye in a timely-manner.

Much of modern medicine prolongs not only living, but also dying. Physician-assisted suicide is a quite controversial topic as it brings up questions about the morality of killing, the credibility of consent, and the duty of physicians. This is not a new problem; assisted suicide has been discussed in all cultures from very early historical times to the present. However, medicine's recent technological progress has led to an increased ability to extend life. This new potential has made this problem much more pressing than it has in the past. I believe opposition to assisted suicide is in error not only because it does not allow for mercy, but also because the position does not take into account one's autonomy. I

When it comes to end of life care, there are several options that can be discussed between a patient, their family, and the physician. Whether the patient expresses a desire to fight their disease and escalate care to the fullest extent, or if the patient would prefer to deny treatment and keep themselves comfortable in their last days, options exist. But what about those that are undeniably suffering from a terminal illness that is causing them immense amounts of pain that cannot be controlled strictly with palliative measures and wish to end their own life, by their own hands? Currently, there is no federally approved option

Doctor-Assisted suicide for terminally ill patients is a very touchy subject for most people. There are many pros and cons associated with doctor-assisted suicide. In health care it is important to be mindful of people’s varying options on the subject of doctor-assisted suicide for terminally ill patients.

Physician- assisted suicide: Is this the right thing to do? This has been a global debate for decades do patients choosing assisted suicide as an alternative in order to deal with pain management and avoid suffering due to a terminally illness. Patients are finding this option is finding more cost -efficient physician – assisted suicide is seen as more cost-efficient and affordable option for those who cannot afford medical bills, medication including. Patients in certain states has the right to choose to die with dignity by taking advantage of legal alternatives. California became the fifth state to legalize physician-assisted suicide through the End of Life Option act that was signed by Governor Jerry Brown in October 2015(Green, "Physician-Assisted

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. Physician assisted suicide or PAS is different from euthanasia because with euthanasia, someone else’s causes death of the person. PAS the person his or her death. 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. According to the Death with Dignity National Center, in the 1900s, the first publicized assisted suicide was performed by Dr. Kevorkian in 1990 and again in 1998 when he showed the world a video of this act. He was convicted of murder in 1999. Also in 1990, the U.S Supreme court ruled in the Nancy Cruzan case that the “person has the right to refuse lifesaving medical services”, and her feeding tube was removed which ended her life shortly after. The patient self-determination act was passed which allowed patients to refuse or demand medical treatment.

Physician assisted suicide was brought to mainstream attention in the 1990’s due to Dr. Kevorkian’s “suicide machine," who claims to have assisted over 100 suicide deaths of terminally ill patients with Alzheimer’s disease (Dickinson, p. 8). In the early 1990’s, for the first time in United States history the issue was brought to the voting polls in California, Washington, and Oregon (Dickinson, p. 9). The bill was passed in Oregon; legally allowing physicians to facilitate death of the terminally ill, but voters fails to pass the bill in Washington and California (Dickinson, p. 9). In 2008 voters in Washington State passed the Washington Death with Dignity Act (Dickinson, p. 277). Today

An often-overlooked topic that is starting to come more to light, is Euthanasia, and should it be legal? There have been plenty of arguments and political debates about euthanasia and its occurrences in society. According to Demetra M. Pappas he says many different things about this topic. First, he states a supreme court case and says, “State supreme courts are split in their treatment of physician-assisted suicide, The Michigan Supreme Court, in response to Kevorkian’s activities and in response to the very first civil challenge regarding assisted suicide, determined that assisted suicide was illegal.”. Then he also points out “On the other hand, the Montana Supreme Court, perhaps with the hind-sight visual benefits of the Oregon and Washington State experiences, as well as the U.S. Supreme Court positions in 1997 and 2006, ruled that as a matter of state constitutional law, physician-assisted suicide should be permitted.”.

Physician assisted suicide has been a subject of much controversy in the field of healthcare. A physician’s decision to provide life ending drugs relies on whether or not this practice is legal in their state of residence, the patient’s competence, and whether or not they are suffering from a terminal illness. In a study conducted by Zenz, Tryba, and Zenz (2015), it was found that healthcare providers (physicians and nurses) would rather perform euthanasia on terminal patients over physician assisted suicide. Interestingly enough, this study also found that there is a more general acceptance of this practice than a willingness to perform

. The bill was shot down by more than half of the voters. Many have wondered why Michigan voters were so against this bill. In an article written by Yale Kamisar, he stated that, “the reason why the Michigan ballot went so wrong was not due to the terminally ill having the right to die, but people were questioning how it would work in a state where millions didn’t have health insurance, how it would affect family members and their dying loved one’s view on life, and one’s view on the quickness of their approaching death” (Kamisar, 1997). Another event that occurred in the Michigan that rocked voter’s views on the topic of physician-assisted suicide was the case of Dr. Jack Kevorkian. Dr. Kevorkian is a well-known figure as he helped put assisted

Physician-assisted suicide is “often defined by its supporters as helping an individual who is suffering to die with dignity. It is often considered the merciful thing to do” (all.org). It is currently legal in six states, including California as of October 2015. I, as well as seven out of every ten Americans, believe that legalization of assisted suicide should be nationwide (Ross, “Dying Dutch: Euthanasia Spreads across Europe”). Patients all over the country experience life-threatening illness that is often coupled with excruciating pain, physical and emotional. Legalizing assisted suicide provides patients with the option to end their lives with dignity and peace. This also allows patients to no longer feel like a burden on family, friends,

Unfortunately situations arise where one only has two options. Miraculous situations happen every day by the Grace of God, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit. So as human beings, how can one devalue the quality of life of another human being? The practice of Euthanasia and Physician assisted suicide does exactly that; Euthanasia is the intentional ending of one’s life by killing a person for the benefit of that person meanwhile, physician assisted suicide occurs when a physician provides a competent patient with a prescription for medication for the patient to use with the intent of ending his or her own life(Batten 1). The word euthanasia simply means an easy or painless death (eu meaning well, thanatos meaning death). Euthanasia was first

The United States is a nation founded on freedoms and liberties, giving each citizen the ability to make their own life decisions. This freedom includes all aspects of one’s life, including medical care. With freedom comes responsibility, and this is true in terms of physician-assisted suicide. The ongoing struggle between those in favor and those opposed to this subject has ravaged the medical field, bringing into question what is morally and ethically right. The fact of the matter is that physician-assisted suicide is neither morally nor ethically acceptable under any circumstance. Not only is it a direct violation of a doctor’s Hippocratic Oath, but it is not constitutionally binding. Physician-assisted suicide would also lead to