Hill Bosscher Case Summary

The concept and ideology behind Physician-Assisted Suicide within the contemporary generation has become an exceptionally sensitive and controversial issue as multiple factors conglomerate to define if Physician-Assisted Suicide is justifiable within the grounds of ethical understanding and moral principles. The idea concerning PAS is based on the grounds of rational and irrational thinking as in if death is a rational choice above all other alternatives (Wittwer 420).

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.

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.

It provides a competent patient with a prescription medication to use with the primary intention of ending his or her own life. Physician-assisted suicide has its proponents and its opponents. This procedure is not to be taken lightly. All patients pursuing PAS should be evaluated. It is required that “...a patient's request for assistance with a hastened death should generate a thorough evaluation of the patient's motives and attempts at ameliorating the patient's suffering”(NCBI).

For physicians to perform assisted suicide on their patients, there must be complete clarity on patient wishes, and having a mental illness that produces

In modern times, the topic of physician-assisted death has gained prominence in the United States in part to the publicized deaths assisted by Dr. Jack Kevorkian. He was a doctor in the 1980’s who allowed over 130 of his patients commit suicide when they found it to be appropriate. Additionally, physician-assisted suicide has come to the forefront of discussion as a result of general concerns about suffering painful, slow and undignified deaths under a medical care system that is able to extend dying, but not necessarily living. What exactly is physician-assisted suicide? Often referred to as a person’s right to die, assisted suicide is simply death assisted by another person, particularly a medical professional.

Jack Kevorkian was a compassionate doctor who believed in his patients’ rights to choose physician assisted suicide and some say he was hero while others called him a monster or Dr. Death. He assisted 130 terminally ill patients to voluntarily end their own lives with dignity, peace, and at their own time to avoid severe pain, humiliation, and added stress to the patients’ family members. He believed it was the patients’ choice to end their life on their own terms without the government or insurance companies intruding, or a physician’s “keep a patient alive at all costs” mentality. “Lethal injection is now the main method of execution in all but two states due to our desire for the worst of the worst to die in a dignified manner, yet we want the terminally ill to endure suffering, pain, humiliation, and the erosion of their estate without giving them an opportunity to choose the time and method of their death?” Dr. Kevorkian believed a great start for Congress to enact a law providing any terminally ill patient the ability to seek a humane, dignified death by lethal injection.

Assisted Suicide: A Controversial Topic Assisted suicide, also known as physician-assisted death (PAD), has been a topic of controversy for decades. While some argue that PAD should be legalized to grant terminally ill patients the right to die with dignity, others believe it goes against the sanctity of life. This essay will explore the arguments for and against assisted suicide and offer recommendations on how to approach the issue. PAD is Important

The recent legislative advancements concerning physician-assisted suicide have unveiled a series of controversial arguments regarding the right to die. As told by The Gale Encyclopedia of Public Health, “Assisted Suicide is a form of self-inflicted death in which individuals voluntarily bring about their own death with the help of another, usually a physician, relative, or friend. Assisted suicide is sometimes called physician-assisted death or PAD” (Frey 915). Four U.S. states now have legalized the practice of assisted suicide and other countries across the world are successfully making headway in their push for physician-assisted suicide.

The legalization of physician assisted suicide is a very polarizing topic with many advocates for each opposing position. Despite the position that physician assisted suicide should be illegal there are still many valid arguments for its legalization. One of the more popular arguments in favor physician assisted suicide is that it ends the suffering of patients who are experiencing intolerable pain. Most jurisdictions in which, have legalized physician assisted suicide to terminally ill patients, have done so on the belief that it presents a more “merciful death”. As physician assisted suicide does bring a more painless alternative most patients do not request the practice for the purposes of pain.

Current Issues Surrounding Death A hot topic in today’s media and in discussion is the idea of physician assisted suicide and end of life care. There are several legal, ethical, social, and political issues surrounding this idea, which makes it a controversial topic. This paper will discuss some of these issues and explore the idea of physician assisted suicide and end of life care in more detail. Physician assisted suicide is defined as, “suicide by a patient facilitated by means or information (as a drug prescription or indication of the lethal dosage) provided by a physician who is aware of how the patient intends to use such means or information (Merriam-Webster, 2015).

It is believed that once practicing physician-assisted suicides becomes an acceptable concept in society, the next steps will easily be taken toward unethical actions such as involuntary euthanasia. Edmund D. Pellegrino, MD, Professor Emeritus of Medicine and Medical Ethics at Georgetown University claims that our healthcare system is too obsessed with costs and principles of utility. He defies the belief that the slippery slope effect is no more than a prediction, by reminding the outlooks and inclinations of our society. Furthermore, he believes there comes a day that incompetent patients and those in coma won’t be asked for their permission to use euthanasia. The Netherlands is another example of such misuse.

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.

In addition, Williams states that this “policy is a slippery slope” for non-voluntary euthanasia and others may decide for the patient what they think is best, even when the patient does not have a say. William strongly believes that “the dangers of euthanasia are too great to all run the risk of approving it in any form” (William

Assisted suicide is a rather controversial issue in contemporary society. When a terminally ill patient formally requests to be euthanized by a board certified physician, an ethical dilemma arises. Can someone ethically end the life of another human being, even if the patient will die in less than six months? Unlike traditional suicide, euthanasia included multiple individuals including the patient, doctor, and witnesses, where each party involved has a set of legal responsibilities. In order to understand this quandary and eventually reach a conclusion, each party involved must have their responsibilities analyzed and the underlying guidelines of moral ethics must be investigated.