Physician-Assisted Suicide

After a distressing conflict with her family many years ago, Kerewin Holmes decides to dramatically change her lifestyle by isolating herself in a tower from every social force that occurs outside of her walls. While living alone in her tower, she forgets how necessary it is to be with company, but is determined to shield herself even after a boy enters her fortress. The father of the boy, Joe, describes Kerewin after meeting with her on several occurrences by saying she “…[is] covered with flames like knives. And a fierce hidden flame inside it, that sometimes dimmed taking all of the over-lights with it” (Hulme 90). Kerewin realizes how harmful relationships (as symbolized by the flames) can be since they are related to knives. Knives alone

1. (problem – PAS): In today’s society, Physician Assisted Suicide is one of the most questionable and debatable issues. Many people feel that it is wrong for people to ask their doctor to help them end their life; while others feel it is their right to choose between the right to life and the right to death. “Suffering has always been a part of human existence.” (PAS) “Physicians have no similar duty to provide actions, such as assistance in suicide, simply because they have been requested by patients. In deciding how to respond to patients ' requests, physicians should use their judgment about the medical appropriateness of the request.” (Bernat, JL) Physician Assisted Suicide differs from withholding or discontinuing medical treatment, it consists of doctors providing a competent patient with a prescription for medication to aid in the use to end their life.

Summary: On Wednesday, the California Assembly passed a bill that would allow those who are terminally ill to end their lives via physician-assisted suicide. The bill is now awaiting Senate approval. If the Senate approves the measure by Friday, then it will be sent to the governor to be signed into law. The Senate is expected to pass the bill, but some worry that Governor Jerry Brown will veto it due to his religious beliefs. The Senate passed the bill earlier this summer, but pressure from the Catholic Church prevented the legislation from making it out of the Assembly Health Committee. The bill was reintroduced during a special session of Congress last month. With this bill, California could become the fifth state to approve the controversial

Today, most states do not honor the wills of their terminally ill citizens wishing to end their suffering with dignity and compassion. Even with accurate identification of terminal illness prompting legality of some end-of-life directives, most terminal patients must adhere to conventional symptomatic treatments imposing slow physical and mental deterioration without regard to other feasible options. Information garnered from the experience of Oregon’s legalization of physician assisted suicide illuminates the feasibility of this end-of-life option. Physician assisted suicide is beneficial for terminal patients choosing to circumvent imminent mental and physical indignities; therefore this end-of-life option should be legally executable devoid of prosecution.

Those against physician-assisted suicide believe that legally banning the right to die is probable and needed. It is a law that cannot have enough regulations that will protect all patients because loop holes can lead to abuse, privacy, and the actual choice of death. This is described by, “…a legal ban on physician-assisted suicide is constitutionally permissible in light of the state’s legitimate and weighty interests in preventing abuse, protecting patient autonomy, and avoiding involuntary death” (Sunstein 1124). This abuse can be viewed that the poor minorities would be heavily hit by the use of physician-assisted suicide because of their lack of money and representation. These loop holes can be managed though. Being specific in the law

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

There are many differences between PAS and euthanasia, let 's take a look at some of them. Physician assisted suicide means that the physician makes lethal means available to the patient, that can be used when the patient chooses. PAS is also defined as a patient who died by performing the last act of suicide. Euthanasia would mean the physician takes an active role in carrying out the patient 's request. For the patient to receive PAS, they would have to take the medication when they are still capable of swallowing or able to inject a lethal dosage of medication into his or herself. For the patient to receive euthanasia, the doctor would have to be the direct cause of the patient 's death. Because the patient must be competent of killing his or herself for PAS, one of the fears is that the patient will feel the need to take their life at an unnecessary time so they will still be able to before they become incapable. Euthanasia may give more time for the patient to be talked out of or accept other options for their terminal illness before their life is taken. There is more of a chance that a mistake will be made during PAS than there is for Euthanasia because the doctor will be there the whole time and assist the patient in death him or herself. Both will have the same outcome, they are just different options for the patient.

Physician Assisted Suicide has become an enormous debate across the world. It was originally thought to be entirely cruel and immoral, but, as time has passed and medical ethics have been considered, it has slowly gained acceptance. Physician Assisted Suicide (PAS) is a legitimate option for those suffering from painful terminal illnesses. It allows the patient who is suffering to have a choice in the matter of their life, which is valuable when someone is in such a vulnerable place. Legally, the topic has not done extremely well in the past, but in recent years people have acknowledged that legally there is nothing wrong being done. There are laws and regulations that are followed while performing PAS, making it nearly impossible to take advantage of it. Slowly PAS has gained acceptance, from different states, and from general people worldwide. Physician Assisted Suicide is a valid option for terminal patients and should not be criminalized or considered cruel.

I believe physician-assisted death is morally permissible if one relied on the philosophical methodology of utilitarianism. Physician-assisted death can be defined as a patient administered form of death prescribed by a physician. Not to be confused with euthanasia, the intentional killing by act or omission of a dependent patient for their alleged benefit. Physician-assisted suicide comes with a multitude of legal safeguards to protect certain communities, either physician or patient, who might abuse the practice. In order for a patient to qualify they must fulfill the following: The patient must be at least 18 years of age, must be a resident of the state legalized to practice physician-assisted death, two physicians must evaluate the patient

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

There is so much controversy about physician assisted suicide. There is even controversy about the wording itself. Some call it physician assisted suicide, while others refuse to use the word suicide at all, in correlation to the meaning of this subject, which I will discuss later. There are a few different ways to say it, but all mean basically the exact same thing; death with dignity, end of life option, aid in dying, and the right to die. No one wants to die. But the harsh reality is that when a person is diagnosed with a terminal illness, it is a life changing diagnosis, literally. No one likes the idea of dying, no matter how it is phrased, maybe the reason it is so terrifying is none of us have ever died before to talk about it,

In today’s society, suicide, and more controversially, physician assisted suicide, is a hotly debated topic amongst both every day citizens and members of the medical community. The controversial nature of the subject opens up the conversation to scrutinizing the ethics involved. Who can draw the line between morality and immorality on such a delicate subject, between lessening the suffering of a loved one and murder? Is there a moral dissimilarity between letting someone die under your care and killing them? Assuming that PAS suicide is legal under certain circumstances, how stringent need be these circumstances? The patient must be terminally ill to qualify for voluntary physician-assisted suicide, but in the eyes of the non-terminal patients with no physical means to end their life, the ending of their pain through PAS may be worth their death; at what point is the medical staff disregarding a patient’s autonomy? Due to the variability of answers to these questions, the debate over physician-assisted suicide is far from over. However, real life occurrences happen every day outside the realm of debate and rhetoric, and decisions need to be made.

It is obvious this is a very controversial issue that is discussed daily by those who wish to die to avoid loss of dignity and also by those who think it could be immoral. For physician-assisted suicide to even be considered the patient must be of sound mind when they are requesting the physician-assisted suicide. To guarantee that the process is carried out correctly a doctor or a witness should be there to prove consciousness. The patient must be diagnosed with a terminal illness, if they are not then there is a possibility for a life. There are many pro’s and con’s to physician-assisted suicide. If a person is terminally ill they would not be in any suffering and they could die with dignity. It is also proven that hospitals would save money, and it could possibly cut some of the deficit. Although it sounds immoral, having a terminally ill person in the family can create many problems, so in this case it would be positive because there would be no more burden. It is quite possible that passing this law would create a damper on the low income and middle class. For many it goes against the separation of church and state, because many believe that dying that way is a sin. It is very possible that miracle cures will arise shortly after a person has partaken in the physician-assisted suicide. In all reality, the government insurance companies and hospitals will want to force this process because it would save them a great deal of money in the long run.

While terminal illness is tragic, physician assisted suicide is not a cure. Terminal illness can be hard to cope with for the patient and the patient’s family, but taking pills to help and taking pills to die are two very different methods of healing. A few months, a few weeks, a few days, no matter the time the person has left they can take that precious time to mend broken moments, ease suffering of family, and experience things they may not have had a reason to experience before being diagnosed. Everyone dies, it is inevitable and a consequence of sin, but suicide should not be a reason for someone to die. Everyone that dies leaves a broken-hearted person behind at the same time, assisted suicide steals a person of the time they could be

Physician assisted suicide, the suicide of a patient suffering from an incurable disease, effected by the taking of lethal drugs provided by a doctor for this purpose. The question of whether or not this practice should be made legal in the United States has been one of controversy since 1997. Beginning with the case of Washington v. Glucksberg, where the United States Supreme Court ruled that the matter of the constitutionality of a right to a physician’s aid in dying, was best left up to the states. Then gaining even more controversy when Oregon passed the Death with Dignity Act, which allowed terminally-ill Oregonians to end their lives by the practice of physician assisted suicide. (CNN.com) Proponents of physician assisted suicide