The Face Of Physician Assisted Suicide Or Pas

The Supreme Court of Canada’s ruling concerning physician-assisted dying in the case of Carter vs. Canada answers the following two questions: 1) Does the current law against physician-assisted dying infringe an individual’s right to life, liberty and security and 2) If the law is a violation of this right, is this violation justified under the Charter of Right’s general limitation clause. The Supreme Court of Canada’s decision on the first question was in the affirmative. The Supreme Court rules that the prohibition of physician assisted dying is void because it deprives a competent adult of assistance when “(1) the person affected clearly consents to the termination of life; and (2) the person has a grievous and irremediable medical condition

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.

Is physician assisted suicide ethically justified? Physician-assisted suicide (PAS) is defined as ending one’s own life by taking a fatal dosage of a substance with the direct or indirect assistance of a physician (MedicineNET.com, 2015). PAS is a very sensitive and controversial topic that raises many moral and ethical questions. While some feel that a person should be able to die with dignity and under their own terms, others feel that this is not a choice we can ethically make. PAS recently made national headlines when Brittany Maynard, a twenty-nine year old woman diagnosed with stage IV glioblastoma, went public with her plan to end her own life under Oregon’s Death with Dignity Act that was passed in 1997. Maynard legally received a prescription from her physician for a lethal dose of barbiturates and decided to end her life own life instead of suffering the painful death that loomed in her near future. She ended her own life on November, 3, 2014 with her family by her side (Durando, 2014). There are many moral issues that surrounded Maynard’s decision and whether or not PAS is ethical, however it is important to understand both sides of the debate to truly get the entire picture of the complexity of this issue before making the determination if physician-assisted suicide is ethically justified.

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]

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.

Brittany Maynard was given six months to live after being diagnosed with the deadliest form of brain cancer; she had recently just turned 29. To make matters worse, doctors had told her she would suffer from the tumor in a slow and painful manner before succumbing to death. Maynard decided she would die on November 1, a few days after her husband’s birthday under physician-assisted suicide. Unfortunately, she had to relocate from California, where her friends and family lived, to Oregon in order to fall under the “Die With Dignity” act. According to euthanasia.procon.org, only four states in the whole country have legalized assisted suicide. Unfortunately, there are many like Maynard, who have to relocate and leave their home or go through a long and strenuous court battle to receive this treatment plant. This is due to the disapproval of physician-assisted suicide.

According to Westrick (2014), the terms “assisted suicide and euthanasia generally mean aiding or assisting another person to kill himself or herself, or killing another person at his or her request, often called ‘active voluntary euthanasia’” (p. 349). Assisted suicide is better defined as a prescriber providing a lethal dose of medication to a patient with the intent of ending a patient’s life (Westrick, 2014). Political debate concerning assisted suicide is ongoing. Currently in the U.S., physician-assisted suicide is legal in Oregon, Montana, Washington, Vermont, and California (Death with Dignity, 2016). The purpose of this paper is to review RCW 70.245, The Washington Death with Dignity Act, Initiative 1000, and to identify and address the gap in existing statutory language in the

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).

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.

To better understand physician-assisted suicide, it is important to consider its history in our society. Euthanasia can be traced back to the Ancient Greeks, however by the thirteenth century Christians, as well as Jews, opposed the practice due to religious beliefs. The earliest United States law prohibiting assisted suicide was passed in New York in 1828. During World War II, Hitler organized mercy killing of the sick or disabled; often referred to as, "Aktion T4" this program was enacted for disabled children under the age of three. A Catholic Bishop called the practice of Euthanasia murder; as a result Hitler publicly ended the program, despite it continuing in private. Instead of using euthanasia by way of gas chambers, the use of drugs and/or starvation became the new way to euthanize citizens without causing attention to themselves. (The History Place 1997) The majoring of United States citizens were against the practice for the main reason being religion; however, looking ahead to the year 1972, euthanasia became a more widely accepted act, "The US Senate Special Commission on Aging (SCA) holds the first national hearing on death with dignity entitled “Death with Dignity: An inquiry into Related Public Issues.” The national hearing showed that Americans were becoming more accepting of the act of assisted suicide, yet less accepting of expecting a miracle while witnessing the suffering of loved ones. (Samuelson)

It cannot be established with ease whether the decision to have physician-assisted suicide is voluntary or is influenced by others. Even physicians are not able to establish the time of death and guarantee whether there is a likelihood of remission through the use of advanced treatments. This means that conducting physician-assisted suicide would translate into numerous illegal deaths that could have been prevented (Boudreau & Somerville, 2013). Critics argue that legalizing physician-assisted suicides could appear like encouraging violation of the law and promoting the lack of trust between patients and physicians. Moreover, the practice would cause deterioration in medical care in addition to causing victimization of the people who are susceptible in this society (Diekstra, 2008). Apart from these weaknesses, critics echo that there are other areas where physician-assisted suicide could be

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.

Brittany Maynard, a woman known for her advocacy in the controversial topic of assisted suicide, officially ended her life this fall after learning of her fatal brain tumor. After complaining of horrible headaches, she decided to see a doctor where they gave her this traumatic news. She had two corrective surgeries to try and stop the growth of her large tumor, but they were unsuccessful. Her doctor then suggested full brain radiation, but after months of researching this option, along with many other, she knew her quality of what short life she had left would quickly deteriorate. With the help of her family, friends, and newly-wed husband, she made the decision to move with her loved ones from her California home to Oregon, where death with

The topic that my group chose for the AP Capstone group project was Physician Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia, as we all thought that it would be a topic that would be interesting to write about. Additionally, my group was curious about the topic, and personally, I have aspirations to have some sort of career in the medical field one day. Another member in our group was very interested in law, and the other was curious about the topic, so we decided to go with the topic of physician assisted suicide and euthanasia. However, we originally thought that the group paper would be a very easy assignment as we, as a group had worked on other papers together before, but having our papers flow together and editing down repeated or unnecessary information was way harder than I

Brittany Maynard, a beautiful 29-year-old woman who made a political outburst when she chose assisted suicide death, Maynard was suffering from stage four brain cancer. She stated that “I’m