Should Physician Assisted Suicide Be Legal?

At the heart of the debate of doctor assisted suicide is the supreme court trial of Carter v Canada. This was the catalyst which lead to the national legalization of assisted suicide. One of the major arguments against this law was that of the safeguards and regulations needed to protect Canadians from harm. Proponents against physician assisted suicide believe that any bill that are created for such a cause will have “inadequacy of safeguards and the potential to devalue human life” (Carter v Canada, 344). Thus, leaving those who are pro-assisted suicide require to create guidelines and protections for all parties involved with process. Allowing for there to be proper and adequate safeguards for assisted suicide is of vital importance to this law as it is these safeguards are the foundation of the assisted suicide law.

In a more recent court decision, Carter v. Canada was a game-changer for the movement to grant Canadians the right to die with dignity. In a unanimous decision, the justices of the high court struck down on the federal prohibition on doctor-assisted dying. It was argued that the law violated the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Since the law regarding doctor assisted dying was created because of Carter v. Canada, the immediate and known risks associated with doctor assisted dying are being addressed and managed by establishing a strict but fair criteria for determining who can access doctor assisted dying and the safeguards that are in place to safely administer it. To meet the criteria, he/she must be a competent adult, clearly consent to the termination of life, have a grievous and irremediable medical condition, and experience enduring suffering that is intolerable in the circumstances of his or her condition. Doctors are required to use their knowledge, skill and judgement to assess an individual’s aptness for doctor assisted death, in conjunction with the above-mentioned criteria. We must recognize that within these criteria are sub-criteria’s and there are many steps to this procedure.

According to the Criminal Code of Canada, physician-assisted suicide is illegal in Canada. However, due to the changing minds of Canadians and their values over a course of time, Canada created new laws that directed the act of assisted suicide by a physician. However, it is an ongoing debate whether these laws are problematic or beneficial. Canada’s new laws regarding doctor-assisted suicide are effective because patients can die with dignity, there are benefits to the healthcare system and there will be less emotional turmoil for patients and their families.

Throughout the twentieth century, major scientific and medical advances have greatly enhanced the life expectancy of the average person. However, there are many instances where doctors can preserve life artificially. When society ponders over the idea of physician-assisted suicide, they most likely feel that the act itself would compare to murdering someone. Who really has the authority to say what is right or wrong when a loved one wants to end their life because of a terminal illness or a severe physical disability? Should Physician-assisted suicide be Legal in California to make it a euthanasia state like Oregon ? In the article titled “Nicest Lawmaker Touts Assisted Suicide,” by Clea Benson published The Bakersfield Californian in 2006, the author presents a Republican lawmaker Patty Berg, who is groom pushing a bill allowing assisted suicide be legal in California. Physician assisted suicide should be allowed to those who are terminally ill with a limited amount of time left to live, and shouldn’t be eligible for people who are young, healthy, or have plenty of time to live.

A tough issue on the rise in the United States is whether or not Physician Assisted Suicide (PAS) should be legal. Physician Assisted Suicide allows a physician to prescribe a lethal dose of medication to a patient to end their life. However, the patient has to take the drugs on their own. PAS would be only offered to those suffering from a terminal illness with less than six months to live. The way these patients go about treating and or living with a terminal illness is a very hard decision to make. This is the first time they have been given the choice of how they wish to die. PAS is an option that allows the sick to avoid the immense pain in their final months. The issue however, is whether this allows them to die with dignity or if it allows them to be taken advantage of.

The purpose of this paper is examine the use of Physician-Assisted Suicide (PAS) in certain patients in a bid to support its legalization in all states. In this paper I will argue that the use of PAS in patients who are terminally ill, in non-terminally ill patients who undergo intolerable pain, or in patients who are terminally or non-terminally ill who fear a loss of dignity and control over their body in the end stages of life is permissible. I will first define PAS and VAE and attempt to characterize suicide. I will then concentrate on the different historical views of PAS over

Physician-assisted suicide, abbreviated as PAS, is a topic that carries wide concerns to people in the United States. PAS is being deliberated on whether a physician should be legally allowed to prescribe a lethal drug to its patient. Many views conflict each other on this topic, whether it is because of religion, morals, or ethics. As PAS can be a difficult subject to others, PAS is usually decided by the patient itself.

Worldwide controversy surrounds the physician-assisted suicide. Some countries have already adopted a policy that protects physicians who assist people into committing suicide through lethal doses of medication such as in the Dutch government. Many people believe that physician-assisted suicide should be legalized on the basis of mercy. Others oppose to such legalization; they argue that by decriminalizing euthanasia, vulnerable population (the mentally ill, those with physical disabilities, and the elderly) may be at risk of abuse (Weiss & Lonnquist, 2009).

In the landmark case of dealing with assisted suicide in Canada, Carter v. Canada (Attorney General) , the Supreme Court of Canada (hereafter SCC) revisited the issue of assisted suicide and confirmed that Canadians have the constitutional right to choose physician-assisted suicide in certain situations. This case involves several

Assisted suicide is an extremely controversial issue both in Canada and countries around the world. In most of the world, assisted suicide is still illegal, but there appears to be some movement towards its legalization. Regardless of this shift towards the possible legalization of assisted suicide, there is still substantial resistance and debate regarding the issue. On one hand, those who support assisted suicide mostly use the ethical argument that everyone should have the right to choose how and when they die and that they should be able to die with dignity. Another factor is the “quality of life” issue, which means a person should no longer have to live, if they feel their life is no longer worth living. On the contrary, the argument against

The right to doctor assisted suicide is a very controversial topic throughout the world. Some believe that it is morally incorrect, whereas others feel empathy for the suffering who wish to put an end to the pain. Without a doubt, patients should have the right to put an end to life when suffering or when death is imminent. With the help of doctor assisted suicide, healthcare implications are lessened, the burden on families is relieved and patients suffering can come to an end. These are some of the reasons why doctor assisted suicide needs be legalized in all parts of the world.

Every thirty-eight seconds, there is a suicide attempt in the United States (Suicide Statistics). Why does a person consider taking their own life? The answer is never simple. Loss, mental illness, physical illness, failure, and substance abuse are some of the leading causes of suicide. The taking of a life is considered a tragedy. It greatly harms the people closest to the victim and society as a whole. Why then do some people support physician-assisted suicide, the prescription of lethal drugs by a doctor as requested by a patient? Some claim that with the right to life comes the right to death. Others wish to end the suffering of those with terminal illnesses. However, if physician-assisted suicide is permitted, the likelihood of terminating life without consent increases. Physician-assisted suicide should be illegal because it is both unnecessary and immoral. Passive assisted suicide exists legally, providing the right to a natural death. The legalization of active assisted suicide would lead to wrongful extermination of life due to poor

Physician assisted suicide should be morally permissible. Patients who are in constant suffering and pain have the right to end their misery at their own discretion. This paper will explore my thesis, open the floor to counter arguments, explain my objections to the counter arguments, and finally end with my conclusion. I agree with Brock when he states that the two ethical values, self-determination and individual well-being, are the focal points for the argument of the ethical permissibility of voluntary active euthanasia (or physician assisted suicide). These two values are what drives the acceptability of physician assisted suicide because it is the patients who choose their treatment options and how they want to be medically treated. Patients are physically and emotionally aware when they are dying and in severe pain, therefore they can make the decision to end the suffering through the option of physician assisted suicide.

Euthanasia and physician assisted suicide are both types of medical assistance aiding in ending a suffering patient’s life. This pain may be due to a terminal illness and suffering as well as those in an irreversible coma. This practice of doctor assisted suicide is illegal in many countries, but is increasing in popularity as people start to recognize the positive aspects that euthanasia has to offer for those that fit the criteria. Euthanasia is essential for those, placed in such life diminishing situations, and whom no longer want to experience suffering. This is where the issue gets complicated, and many religious groups argue that individuals should not have the legal right to choose whether they get to die or not, but that it is simply in God’s hands. Suffering patients argue that they should be given the right to choose whether or not they have to experience this suffering, to end their life with the dignity they still have, and to alleviate the stress that their deteriorating life conditions have on their families, themselves and the entire healthcare system. Therefore, despite the many arguments, euthanasia can have a very positive impact on the lives and families of suffering individuals, as well as the Canadian healthcare system.

The right of a competent, terminally ill person to avoid excruciating pain and embrace a timely and dignified death bears the sanction of history and is implicit in the concept of ordered liberty.