Four Myths About Doctor-Assisted Suicide

The last argument that this paper will look at is the argument of double effect. In the context of terminal illness physician assisted suicide could instead be seen as a vital form of care for someone who is suffering, instead of the failure of medicine. Physician assisted suicide seems to oppose the pro-life view, but on closer examination, its purpose is instead to relieve suffering in imminently terminal cases where it is thought that no other treatment could reasonably hope to do the same. Even though traditionally the role of the doctor is seen as extending life, that role may also encompass the assistance in PAS.

One of the main objections to autonomy-based justifications of physician-assisted suicide (PAS) that Gill talks about is that many people believe it does not promote autonomy, but instead is actually taking it away (366). First, it is important to clarify what autonomy means. According to Gill, it is the ability of a person to make big decisions regarding their own life (369). Opponents of PAS argue that it takes away a person’s ability to make these big decisions and so it is intrinsically wrong for them to choose to take their own life.

The topic of Physician-assisted suicide, or physician aid-in-dying, is a highly debated topic, especially when it comes down to whether this action be legal or not. The definition of Physician-assisted suicide can be defined as the act of intentionally killing yourself with the aid of a medical professional, such as a physician. The practice of Physician-assisted suicide still remains illegal in forty-five states excluding the states of Oregon, Vermont, Montana, California, and Washington. Although states have tried to make this practice legal, the practice of Physician-assisted suicide has become a crime in most. The practice of Physician-assisted suicide should not be illegal.

Though, in this paper, I have addressed several points that Dennis Plaisted has presented on why we should not legalize physician assisted suicide due to the issues with autonomy that convince the public that the state does not care enough to preserve the lives of those with less than six months to live. I argued that the limits of who and when an ill patient may be allowed to receive PAS are present for the state to relieve the pain of the ill who wish to have control over their death, and that it is only an alternative option for those patients. I considered a counterargument to my criticism, which argues that the state and doctors shouldn’t allow for PAS, as it gives the impression that the state does not care about the lives of the terminally ill. Just as well, the reputation of doctors as healers would be compromised if they supported this form of treatment. However, I explained that the quality of life is more valuable than forcing someone who is ill to suffer until their natural death.

Lee Johnson, who lived in Oregon, was a retired federal worker who began a subsequent career as a furniture maker. He then developed brain cancer. Although the disease was inevitably going to kill him, he took the necessary precautions intended to extend his life. However, his condition worsened and he became bedridden and endured blurred vision, soreness, and a lot of pain.

Physician-assisted suicide for psychiatric patients has become a highly debated ethical issue. In the United States, only a handful of states allow for assisted death (“Physician-Assisted Suicide Fast Facts”). Growing awareness for mental health has stirred conversation about whether physician-assisted suicide should be extended to individuals with severe mental illness. For physicians, the ethical principles of beneficence, non-maleficence, and justice are in direct conflict with autonomy. Does the idea of “do no harm” outweigh the potential emotional benefit patients receive from choosing to no longer suffer from their mental illness?

Once an individual reaches late adulthood, many physical, cognitive, and health changes occur. There is an increased vulnerability to disease and illness. This is something any person must be aware of when entering late adulthood. You are reaching the end of your life and you have to accept the possibility of developing health problems or illnesses that may be incurable. One of the most controversial issues in society today is the topic of physician-assisted suicide.

The claims that physician-assisted suicide is used unethically have been disproved by overwhelming evidence that it can be an ethical process. The evidence has been collected from many reliable sources in Oregon and analyzes both sides of the

Physician assisted suicide is when a physician provides the means required to commit suicide, including prescribing lethal amounts of harmful drugs to a patient. In the United States alone, there is great controversy about physician assisted suicide. The issue is whether physician assisted suicide is murder or an act of sympathy for the patient. The main point is that terminally ill patients should have a right to physician assisted suicide if it meets their needs and is done properly. Physician assisted suicide is an appropriate action for the terminally ill that want to end their life in peace before it ends at the hands of the terminal disease.

After researching both sides of the argument, it is clear that the benefits of physician-assisted suicide outweigh the disadvantages. The benefits of ending a patient’s pain and suffering, minimizing the emotional and financial effects on families, and preserving the right for patients to decide their own fate, supports the legalization of physician-assisted suicide.

A survey of physicians conducted by the Canadian Medical Association found that "a significant proportion of respondents reported that they had been asked for assistance in dying by patients whose primary motivation appeared to be loneliness, lack of social support, or perceived burden on others" (Downar et al., 2017). This means that if physician-assisted suicide is legalized, at-risk people could be vulnerable to coercion or abuse. Opponents say allowing doctors to assist in suicide would undermine their role as healers and could lead to unwanted or unnecessary deaths, or a loss of respect for human life. The American Psychological Association echoes these concerns and highlights the major risks associated with such decisions. Among those concerns are, “Depression causing a desire for death,” “A loss of autonomy and function causing a desire for control,” and “worries about future pain” (Weir).

When I was twelve years old, my grandfather passed away after a long, excruciating struggle with lung cancer. He endured months of insufferable agony, which continued until the mercy that came with his dying breath. Looking back on this experience, I am firm in my belief that nobody should have to endure the suffering that my grandfather did. This however, is just one instance in which physician-assisted suicide would have proven beneficial. According to the New York Times, Jerry Brown, who recently signed California’s own assisted suicide law said that if he were ill, it “would be a comfort to consider the options afforded by this bill” (Boffey 1).

The Right to Die 1) Introduction a) Thesis statement: Physician assisted suicide offers patients a choice of getting out of their pain and misery, presents a way to help those who are already dead mentally because of how much a disease has taken over them, proves to be a great option in many states its legal in, and puts the family at ease knowing their love one is out of pain. i) The use of physician assisted death is used in many different countries and some states. ii) Many people who chose this option are fighting a terminal illness.

Physician assisted suicide has been an intensely debated problem for years but if used properly, could be an effective way to help those who are suffering at the end of their life. Countless people have been advocating for physician assisted suicide for years and the most famous advocate for assisted suicide was Dr. Jack Kevorkian. He was a pathologist but received the nickname Dr. Death after it was estimated that between 1990 and 1999 he assisted 130 terminally ill individuals in their assisted suicides (“Jack Kevorkian”). Dr. Kevorkian is considered a crusader for physician

The medical field is filled with opportunities and procedures that are used to help improve a patient’s standard of living and allow them to be as comfortable as possible. Physician assisted suicide (PAS) is a method, if permitted by the government, that can be employed by physicians across the world as a way to ease a patient’s pain and suffering when all else fails. PAS is, “The voluntary termination of one's own life by administration of a lethal substance with the direct or indirect assistance of a physician.”-Medicinenet.com. This procedure would be the patient’s decision and would allow the patient to end their lives in a more peaceful and comfortable way, rather than suffering until the illness takes over completely. Physician assisted suicide should be permitted by the government because it allows patients to end their suffering and to pass with dignity, save their families and the hospital money, and it allows doctors to preserve vital organs to save