Pros And Cons Of Physician Assisted Suicide

1930 Words8 Pages
Physician Assisted Suicide (P.A.S.) has become a highly controversial topic over the years. According to MedicineNet.com, Physician Assisted Suicide is “the voluntary termination of one’s own life by administration of a lethal substance with the direct or indirect assistance of a physician.” Jack Kevorkian became the largest and most publicized advocate of it. The 2010 film You Don’t Know Jack starring Al Pacino as Kevorkian, chronicles his life and work to help patients who are suffering to commit suicide effortlessly. Washington, Montana, Oregon, Belgium, Switzerland, and the Netherlands openly and legally authorize assisted suicides of dying patients. Proponents of P.A.S. believe that each person should be able to choose when they would…show more content…
It is easy to see why this is a hotly debated subject because death is not to be taken lightly. Opponents worry about the ethical and moral implications. They consider P.A.S. to be immoral and violating God’s will. Catholics believe that life is the most basic gift God has given to us and in return we are to take care of our own health; but in our lives, “we are not morally obligated to use all available medical procedures in every set of circumstances.” (ProCon.org). The Sixth Commandment in the Bible states, “Thou shalt not kill.” Religious believers argue that P.A.S. is in clear defiance of the commandment. Opponents of Physician Assisted Suicide consider the act to be a mortal sin. Devout Catholics and Christians claim that if a person is to take his or her own life, they will suffer eternal damnation. Most P.A.S. organizations have certain limitations as to what patients can and cannot receive the service. Final Exit Network, originally known as the Hemlock Society, accepts patients that other organizations may turn away. These patients might have cancer, Parkinson’s disease, and congestive heart failure. The moral and ethical parameters for Physician Assisted Suicide should be that the person is a mature adult, the physician and patient have made an informed decision, the patient does not involve others in liability, and the patient is in so much pain and agony that assisted suicide is…show more content…
Any time a doctor gives any sort of treatment, it is going against God’s will. Catholics and other religious believers are being hypocrites because their yearly physicals or getting a flu shot is violating God’s will. Opponents are also going against the separation of church and state by bringing in the Supreme Court to make P.A.S. illegal. The concept is for the church to stay out of the state’s business and opponents are clearly crossing the line. They would not appreciate if the government came in to their church and tell him how to operate so they should mind their own business and stay out of the government’s business. Self-determination without compromise is a civil right. People should be able to choose a good death after they’ve lived a good life. It is the right of a terminally ill person to end excruciating pain. The ACLU’s Amicus Brief in Vacco v. Quill has gone into detail about a person’s right being central to personal autonomy. The right to a good death is a basic human freedom (Religious Tolerance). As long as the patient is mentally competent, a terminally ill person has the right to end their suffering by bringing about his or her own
Open Document