The Ethics Of Physician Assisted Suicide

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.

In Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle establishes that “every art and every inquiry, and similarly every action and pursuit, is thought to aim at some good and for this reason the good has rightly been declared to be that at which all things aim” and explains this through the dialectic of disposition, particularly between vice and virtue. In chapter four, Aristotle affirms that since “all knowledge and every pursuit aims at some good”, we inherently seek the highest form which is known to both the masses and the educated as happiness through both living and acting well . Thus regardless of whether man is inherently evil or good, we aspire for the highest form of happiness. Through the implications and discourse of vice and virtue, this paper explores the relevance of Aristotle’s moral philosophy in modern day and will be applied to the contemporary ethical issue surrounding physician assisted suicide. By exploring Aristotle’s work through primary and secondary sources, this paper will discuss the greater good and happiness as it relates to not only the patient or physician, but as a member of a greater social circle and that of society because to Aristotle the role of the individual is less important than their social obligations and role. This paper aims to use the rationale of natural law and of Aristotle to explore the prospects of physician assisted suicide as for the greater good and as a modern ethical obligation.

Physician-assisted suicide is arguably one of the most controversial subjects to discuss or read about within our society. This paper will examine both sides of this discussion, from the aspect of the patient choosing to end their own life based on the quality of their remaining life. Also, the religious factors of the medical staff involved and the moral and ethical duty of the doctors to preserve the life of the patient if there are still means available.

Physician-assisted suicide can be described as the act of a terminally ill individual obtaining a lethal prescription in order to exercise their right to die with dignity. Though physician-assisted suicide is highly controversial, it is legally practiced in a small number of states within the United States. Much of the controversy surrounding physician-assisted suicide relates to the social, political, and ethical questions and considerations concerning the practice. Regardless

Within the past few years physician assisted suicide has been a major topic of debate. Assisted suicide is termed as suicide committed with aid from another individual, including a doctor. With the suicide term raising much concern, many people interchangeably use other terms. A few terms are death with dignity, physician assisted death or compassionate dying. Physician assisted death is implemented for those that are terminally ill and mentally capable adults that would prefer to shorten their dying process. The option of being able to get medical aid in dying only apply to certain states, and must pass through an election for that specific state. The first state to vote on the subject was Oregon and eventually passed in 1994 as the Death with Dignity Act (Jackson, 2008). There are now six states in the United States that has passed this act. The states that are allowing physician assisted death are District of Columbia, Oregon, Washington, Vermont, California and recently Colorado.

Since 1994, Physician-Assisted Suicide (PAS) has been legal in the state of Oregon. The law allows patients diagnosed as having less than six months to live to decide when they will die. Sadly, death is a fact of life. Losing a loved one to debilitating disease or terminal illness is an experience to which an increasing number of Americans can relate. Every day new cases of cancer, ALS, and other painful, potentially fatal diseases are diagnosed in the US. The American Cancer Society estimates that over 22,000 new cancer cases will be reported in 2015 in Oregon alone, with roughly 8,000 subsequently dying. Faced with such overwhelming diagnoses, many patients choose to fight; other patients opt to spend their remaining time with their families,

Imagine suffering day to day with consistent hospital visits, numerous medications, and unbearable pain for the next six months of your life, then being told that dying peacefully is not a granted privilege. Then imagine not being able to die in a controlled and dignified process like you prefer to. How would that affect the way you feel about death and the rest of your life you have left? Millions of people suffering from terminal illnesses consider physician-assisted suicide, but their wishes are rejected due to state and government beliefs. In fact, only five states out of fifty have a law permitting citizens the right to participate in physician-assisted suicide. That leaves just only 10% of the United States entitling critically ill patients to die with nobility. However, many citizens are commencing to lean toward physician-assisted suicides once they ascertain they hold a terminal illness.

Legalized physician assisted suicide. California, Oregon, Vermont, and Washington have made it legal by legislation, and Maine has made it legal by a court ruling. The remaining 45 states

Physician-assisted suicide is a controversial subject all around the world. Although it is legal in some countries and states, such as the Netherlands, Luxembourg, Switzerland, Oregon, Montana, Washington, and Vermont it is not yet legal in most (Finlay, 2011). People travel from all around the world to these locations to receive information. Physician-assisted suicide is when terminally ill and mentally capable patients perform the final act themselves after being provided with the required means and information. The elemental causes found for physician-assisted suicide include: terminal cancer, mental and behavioral disorders, diseases of the nervous system, disease of the circulatory system, and diseases of the musculoskeletal system

In the medical field there are massive amounts of treatments for various diseases. Some treatments are going to help the patient feel more comfortable; however, some are going to counteract the problem, and others are going to help kill the patient. Physician assisted suicide is defined by medterms.com as “the voluntary termination of one 's own life by administration of a lethal substance with the direct or indirect assistance of a physician.” Any person wishing to undergo assisted suicide in Oregon must be at least 18 years of age and have a terminal illness. This illness must be within its final stages and leave the patient with less than six months to live.

Physician assisted suicide is a controversial moral issue that I feel should be allowed in all states not just a few. Right now there are only five states that have some type of death with dignity law; one which has some extra steps that need to be taken to be able to use the law. Over the last year there has been more media coverage on this topic because of a young woman named Brittany Maynard, who decided to tell her story with needing this option. The real question though should be do we have the right to tell someone that they do not deserve to have this choice?

Who gets to make the choice whether someone lives or dies? If a person has the right to live, they certainly should be able to make the choice to end their own life. The law protects each and everyone’s right to live, but when a person tries to kill themselves more than likely they will end up in a Psychiatric unit. Today we hear more and more about the debate of Physician assisted suicide and where this topic stands morally and ethically. Webster 's dictionary defines Physician assisted suicide as, suicide by a patient facilitated by means (as a drug prescription) or by information (as an indication of a lethal dosage) provided by a physician who is aware of the patient 's intent (Webster, 1977).

There are a few different forms of physician-assisted death, such as active, passive, and assisted suicide. To some people they may mean the same thing but in reality, they are quite different. Active euthanasia is when a physician physically injects the patient with a drug that ends their live or in some way is the direct result of the patient’s death. Passive euthanasia is the result of something taken away from the patient that results in their death, such as removing a breathing tube or stopping treatment. Physician assisted suicide is the result of lethal medication given to the patient for them to take on their own time when they are ready to end their life. Some people see these different forms as being the same while others see them as being different. There are four ethical principles that become involved in conflict with these forms of euthanasia. These principles are beneficence, autonomy, non-maleficence, and justice, which act against each other sometimes in the cases of euthanasia. Beneficence is the duty of the physician to have the welfare of the patient is their first concern. This principle sometime goes against euthanasia because of the fact the physicians are stopping treatment, which results in the death of the patient. Many argue this act is the result of not thinking of the patient’s welfare. Another principle is autonomy, according to Steve Pantilat, “Autonomous individuals act intentionally, with understanding, and without controlling influences”

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.

Physician assisted suicide or PAS is a controversial topic in the world today. But the important question is, should physician assisted suicides be allowed in cases such as: the patient’s suffering is far too great and there is no chance of them getting better? This is a highly debated issue, that has activist groups on both sides fighting for what they think is the right thing to do. Physician assisted suicides can stop the excruciating pain a patient is in, especially if there is nothing that can be done to stop the pain. Or it can be done for a patient that fully understands that there is nothing that can be done to save their life, so as not to put their loved ones into financial hardship. In this