(Carr, 1995) Pros of assisted suicide Supporters of abetted suicide reason that the choice regarding culmination of life comes within the most close and individual problems which anybody will ever encounter, which nobody can probably be more fit than the person who is suffering to arrive at such decisions, and that the person thus must have the liberty to choose when the lumber of persistent suffering offsets the advantages of sustained living. (Gates, 1997) it has been reasoned that a majority of physicians have had patients with later stage of cancer, terminal cardiac malfunction, extreme persistent obstructive pulmonary disease or other immobilizing and traumatizing ailments
They view these as rare instances it will be lead to awful legal systems. (Girsh; Marker, 1999) the people who are not in favor of assisted suicide disagree that it would infringe doctor's Hippocratic Oath
The victim should be able and fatally sick and should be provide a completely willing and relentless appeal for assistance in ending his life. (Gula, 1999) typical method to contemplate regarding euthanasia is that a doctor administers a fatal injection to the victim who wishes to end his life
This is one of the key issues that medical professionals debate in the United States when discussing assisted suicide and it's legalities. Conclusion Whether assisted suicide is right or wrong depends on the lens through which one decides to view it (Andre & Velasquez, 2010)
One of them is the mental condition and state of the patient at the time they request suicide. One of the key issues that prevents resolution of the issue is determining the status of the patient's mental health (Gorsuch, 2009)
In Switzerland, it involves a fatal dose of sodium Phenobarbital. There are risks to the process and if it doesn't work the patient can end up in a coma, but still alive (Ross, 2012)
One of the key issues that prevents resolution of the issue is determining the status of the patient's mental health (Gorsuch, 2009). The future of assists suicide is uncertain, largely due to the number of issues involved (Smith, 2007)
Physician-Assisted Suicide For the most part, the current argument for physician-assisted suicide in the United States has much to do with whether or not, under special circumstances, is it morally and ethically permissible for a physician to provide the knowledge and/or means whereby a terminally ill patient can have his/her own life ended. In modern terms, this medical act, sometimes called PAS -- euthanasia, can be described as "deliberately bringing about the death of a person that is suffering from an incurable disease or condition through the administration of a lethal drug or by allowing the patient to die naturally by withholding treatment" (Glanze, 447)
S. Supreme Court ruled that there was no right to assisted suicide in the Constitution but implied that states have the right to decide for themselves concerning whether or not to prohibit PAS (Hendin & Foley 2008, 1613) the Oregon Death with Dignity Act was enacted (even after facing its own set of legal challenges), allowing the primary care physician managing the patient's terminal illness, to prescribe a lethal medication, which the patient then self-administers (Carlson, Simopolous, Goy, Jackson & Ganzini 2005, 1160)
S. Supreme Court ruled that there was no right to assisted suicide in the Constitution but implied that states have the right to decide for themselves concerning whether or not to prohibit PAS (Hendin & Foley 2008, 1613) the Oregon Death with Dignity Act was enacted (even after facing its own set of legal challenges), allowing the primary care physician managing the patient's terminal illness, to prescribe a lethal medication, which the patient then self-administers (Carlson, Simopolous, Goy, Jackson & Ganzini 2005, 1160)
The Death with Dignity Acts of Oregon and Washington state makes a definite division between the legal and the illegal, which for the legal requires the intent of the physician and the consent of the patient. However, it is impossible to discern intent and patients may offer consent when they are in a state of mind that doesn't leave them able to make a decision of this sort (Pickett 2008, 9)
Lachlan (2010, 121) asserts that physician-assisted suicide or euthanasia, in general, is an issue that lies in a person's moral conscience as well as any legal or ethical issues that surround the patient. Literature and legislation on euthanasia (specifically in the United States, Australia, Japan, Canada and New Zealand) concerns nurses as well as doctors (Quaghebeur, Dierckx de Casterle & Gastmans 2009, 466) because of each of their specific roles in the care of patients who are dying
Particularly frustrating about both of these Acts are the way in which they are termed. The euphemisms "death with dignity" and other terms are emotionally charged -- and judgmental (Steinbrook 2008, 2513)
The Three-Step Ethical Model provides an analytical approach that addresses all of these issues. Application of Three-Step Ethical Model Legal Issues In the United States, euthanasia is illegal in all 50 states and subjects physicians who administer medication to terminate the life of a patient to criminal prosecution and penal incarceration (Beauchamp & Childress, 2009)
Meanwhile, the concept of separation of church and state is guaranteed by at least one of the two applicable clauses of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (Dershowitz, 2002)
Therefore, the argument against the government prohibition of euthanasia when it is desired by a patient is that it constitutes establishment of religion on the part of the government (Dershowitz, 2002). Naturally, there is a legitimate legal justification for government regulation of assisted suicide to prevent abuse of patients, as well as to ensure that patients seeking to end their lives are mentally competent and capable of making those types of decisions as a matter of law (George, Finlay & Jeffrey, 2005)
On the other hand, it is difficult to find an objective legal justification for prohibiting a mentally competent patient to choose to terminate his or her life with the assistance of a physician, especially when the reason is that the patient is either already dying or suffering from intractable pain that cannot be treated effectively. Balance of Ethical Concerns The principal ethical concerns raised by the concept of euthanasia in the form of physician-assisted suicide at the request of patients are patient rights and patient autonomy (Levine, 2008)
Many within the medical establishment -- to say nothing of the superstitious among us -- are unable to address the question of assisted suicide directly and honestly. They must resort to arguing with the straw man who lives on the slippery slope (Ertelt, 2013)
5% died of heart disease, (the leading cause), and 557,271, or 22.8% died of malignant neoplasms, or cancer (the second leading cause) (Anderson and Smith)
When a person creates a living will, they note that they do not want to be kept on life-support if their prognosis is terminal. Two doctors from the University of Washington note, "When a competent patient makes an informed decision to refuse life-sustaining treatment, there is virtual unanimity in state law and in the medical profession that this wish should be respected" (Braddock and Tonelli)