Physicians do not like to admit when they cannot diagnose something or fix a problem. Therefore, one's pride could be deeply hurt with physician assisted suicide because it
To begin with, for several years there has been much controversy surrounding both the legal rights of a person, and the public attitude towards euthanasia. (Emanuel, 2002) However, the United States Supreme Court made a ruling in 1997, that there would not be either a constitutional right for or against euthanasia or “Physician-Assisted Suicide”. (Emanuel, 2002) Therefore, it is up to each of the states to pass the laws that would approve euthanasia, or disallow it, and each individual must look into their own heart and make a decision in regards to their ethical foundation and the beliefs of their life. Interestingly enough, the word euthanasia comes from the Greek word euthanatos, from eu- + thanatos, which means easy death or well death. (Merriam-Webster, 2011) Accordingly, there are two different types of euthanasia, the first is active, and the second is passive, however the outcomes of the two types are the same.
Eventually some people and their families might be forced to put financial concerns above the needs of a loved one. Doctors or insurance companies could try to convince some people to opt for assisted suicide rather than the more expensive treatment. This would be an injustice to all humankind. A history professor at San Francisco State University argued that assisted suicide would lead to inequities and would not be limited to those with a terminal illness. “Given the way the U.S. healthcare system is getting increasingly unjust and even savage, I don't think this system could be trusted to implement such a system equitably, or confine it to people who are immediately terminally ill"(Mohler).
For example, many people against this decision claim that it is not ethical due to the fundamental tenet of medical ethics which is “Do no harm” (Bender 37).This decision is very ethical because what is not ethical is letting an innocent person die instead of taking the route of assisted suicide. If the person suffering was a relative of another person will they think twice not to because it is their loved ones suffering. By defining ethics it is related to a moral principle in which many differ from principles and standards. Another debate can be that assisted suicide is not a constitutional right. Assisted suicide is a choice which the constitution does support freedom of choice.
Some similar issues are also raised by physician assisted suicide (PAS). PAS may be asked for by a patient who wishes to die but is unable to commit suicide without help from another. The degree of help needed will depend upon how capable the patient is. Some may ask for a lethal drug which they can then take themself. For others who are more incapacitated, PAS could involve setting up a mechanism whereby the patient merely has to 'press a button' to receive a lethal injection.
Core Assessment Paper Physician Assisted Suicide Creates Perpetuates the Slippery Slope Argument Abstract Human illness, suffering and death, unfortunately, are part of the human condition, and dealing with chronic illness and death is part of the human experience. With a topic as far reaching as Physician Assisted Suicide (PAS), and, of course the root topic, death, it is understandable that much controversy exist between propends of suicide as a method to ease suffering and their opposition. This paper will address the controversy by presenting a balanced assessment of each argument. The research and findings will show trend predictions in the Slippery Slope argument have been proven factual. Keywords: Physician Assisted Suicide, Medical Ethics, Goals of Medicine, Slippery Slope, Sweden .
Being seen by a doctor either at a medical office or at a hospital, you have the assumption and expectation that things discussed between you and your healthcare provider will remain confidential. You might even sign papers that contain information about how you wish for your information to be disclosed. What you might not know is that this is a result of a large and broad federal law that hasn’t always been present. In the past, patients were unable to have a clear understanding of what can and cannot be discussed after consultation with medical professionals. This led to withholding important information, which could hinder their treatment and recovery.
However, there are many pros and cons to each side of the argument. Physician-assisted suicide is unethical based on the Hippocratic Oath, but is ethical based on the patient’s views – which sometimes outweigh the morals of a physician. Physician-assisted suicide first became an issue when our society decided that it was neither moral nor ethical for a physician to help end a terminally ill patient’s life. According to Katie Pickert, Dr. Jack Kevorkian brought lots of attention to the topic during the “epic assisted suicide battle of the 1990s” (1). People who argue with Kevorkian for physician-assisted suicide feel that by helping a patient end his or her life peacefully is helpful to family and friends.
A physician may provide sleeping pills and information about the lethal dose, with the full knowledge of the patient’s expectation for the outcome. How does a patient arrive at such a decision? One possibility is a patient who is terminal and does not want to face weeks or months enduring extreme pain. Another possibility is the duress of family members. Certain debilitating illness is too painful to endure and causes a person to reassess their passion for life.
Issues in Law and Justice 30 Jan. 2013 Legal Issues of Pro Euthanasia Pro euthanasia is a subject that has been debated worldwide for a very long time with very little success. This practice has been argued as far back as Ancient Greece and Rome; where Socrates employed hemlock as a means of hastening death but was criticizes by Hippocrates and others at that time. Prominent Americans have argued for permitting suicide in cases of chronic illness since 1913 concerning issues of political and social ethics. I think that the quality of life and one’s dignity is the main issue here and should not be interfered with by government. If a person is suffering in unbearable pain and cannot enjoy life then euthanasia would be the best option to help that person die a dignified and peaceful death, rather than a period of lost dignity and prolonged suffering.