First, Do No Harm Essay

Others have argued that physician assisted suicide is not ethically permissible, because it contradicts the traditional duty of physician’s to preserve life and to do no harm. Furthermore, many argue that if physician assisted suicide is legalized, abuses would take place, because as social forces condone the practice, it will lead to “slippery slope” that forces (PAS) on the disabled, elderly, and the poor, instead of providing more complex and expensive palliative care. While these arguments continue with no end in sight, more and more of the terminally ill cry out in agony, for the right to end their own suffering.

We are culturally ingrained from an early age that life is precious and each day is a gift. Life should not be squandered but preserved.  We are encouraged to live with a purpose, cherish our loved ones and live life to its fullest. But what if life becomes too physically painful to endure, often experienced by many terminally ill patients suffering an incurable disease, or a chronically ill elderly person who lacks the ability to thrive?  For forty-five day’s I watched my chronically ill mother languish away in a hospice care facility. The experience was emotionally and financially draining, and I began questioning whether a person should have the right to choose when and how to end their life. In the United States, assisted dying is a widely debated and passionate issue. Opponents argue preserving life, regardless of how much a person is suffering, is an ethical and moral responsibility, determined only by a higher power.  At the other end of the spectrum are those who support a person’s right to end their life with dignity at a time of their choosing.   Wouldn’t my mother’s suffering been greatly reduced if her doctor was legally and ethically permitted to administer a lethal cocktail of drugs to end her life quickly and painlessly? Wouldn’t the prevailing memory of my mother see her in a better light instead of helplessly watching her undignified death? To deny terminal and chronically ill people the freedom to end their

Sidney Hook, in his article “In Defense of Voluntary Euthanasia,” presents his approval and rationale for the right to request euthanasia of patients. Hook starts by describing vividly his miserable conditions after suffering from a stroke, as a consequence, he asks for a painless practice to die, which is eventually denied by his physician. Even though Hook then recovers and has the second life to live, he is unsatisfied with the outcomes. At first, he reasons that, for an octogenarian, there is no guarantee that he will not suffer from another stroke or a different disease, in which case he even cannot ask for the death. Moreover, Hook is afraid to witness another round of suffering that his family and friends have to go through once another attack occasions. The excitement

Autonomy can override beneficence when life-support is withdrawn (Prozgar, 2010). In addition, when a physician takes the position of withdrawing life-supporting equipment, the principle of non-maleficence is severed. Since helping patients die violates the physician’s virtue of duty to save lives,” distributed justice is served by releasing a room in the intensive care unit for a patient who has a higher chance of resolving their medical problems (Pozgar, G. 2010). There are so many inflict fuzzy gray areas and ideas about conflicting DNR policies that political disputes had to go to the courts to sort out the issues legally.

Today, medical interventions have made it possible to save or prolong lives, but should the process of dying be left to nature? (Brogden, 2001). Phrases such as, “killing is always considered murder,” and “while life is present, so is hope” are not enough to contract with the present medical knowledge in the Canadian health care system, which is proficient of giving injured patients a chance to live, which in the past would not have been possible (Brogden, 2001). According to Brogden, a number of economic and ethical questions arise concerning the increasing elderly population. This is the reason why the Canadian society ought to endeavor to come to a decision on what is right and ethical when it comes to facing death.

A Life or Death Situation, by Robin Marantz Henig, New York Times, July, 2013, is a review of the debate surrounding the right to a dignified death. It examines the purely philosophical view of the issue; as well as the heart wrenching reality of being faced with that question in one 's personal life. Does a person have a right to choose how he or she dies? How does that choice impact the people who care about about him or her? Should a person who cares about someone be required to cause or aide in his or her death? These questions weigh heavy on the minds of many people, who live

As the president of the British Medical Association and a professor of palliative medicine, Finley suggests that assisted dying as a personal choice has unacceptable social consequences, and defends the laws in place. She further implicates that dying patients struggle with depression depriving them of the ability to make a utilitarian decision about their own death. I question her objectivity on the matter because I feel as a palliative care physician she will naturally defend hospice care for the dying. Because I disagree with some of what she is saying she will represent my opposition: people who overlook that depriving patients of this very personal decision is in itself a violation of ethics. I will use her points to illustrate that true compassion does not end with relieving suffering and comfort care until natural death occurs.

Physician-assisted suicide is arguably one of the most controversial issues of the twenty-first century. Anyone can kill themselves, but what happens when one is not capable of physically doing so and at the same exact time is also terminally ill. When is it okay for a physician to use their medical expertise, and oblige with a incurably patient; to agree that one’s life is worth ending. Where is the line drawn? Legally, physician-assisted suicide is a criminal offense; you are after all killing another human. Morally, is it okay to watch someone die in agonizing pain and stand-by because God told us all too. This essay will explore and analyze the legal aspect of physician-assisted suicide, what does the law say. As well as, the moral implications of physician-assisted suicide, it is ever okay, and the consequences it will have on our society.

Although there are several debates against this view point, it is not up to anyone else to make decisions of the ill and infirm. As such it should be recognized that “patients have a right to make

Thesis: When it comes to the topic of physician-assisted suicide (PAS), some experts believe that an individual should have the option of ending their life in the event that they have been given six months to live with a terminal illness or when the quality of their life has been vastly changed. Where this argument usually ends, however, is on the question whether physician-assisted suicide is medically ethical, would be overly abused to the point where doctors might start killing patients without their consent. Whereas some experts are convinced that just improving palliative care would decrease the need for someone to want to end their life before it happened naturally.

This assignment will discuss a case involving an individual known to me. It centres on the real and contentious issue of the “right to die”, specifically in the context of physician-assisted death. This issue is widely debated in the public eye for two reasons. The first considers under what conditions a person can choose when to die and the second considers if someone ever actually has a ‘right to die’. The following analysis will consider solutions to the ethical dilemma of physician-assisted death through the lens of three ethical theories. It will also take into account the potential influence of an individual’s religious beliefs

The ethical principles for nurses to practice with beneficence and no maleficence. This legal battle between Terri Schiavo’s husband and her family was an ethical debate between continuing artificial life or remove her feeding tube by the request of her husband. Using the theories of utilitarianism and deontology can be applied or considered in making the most ethically correct resolution. The cases are very complex and raise many moral and ethical issues. The cases have brought awareness to society of “the importance of discussing end-of-life issues with family members and underscores how an advance directive, a living will and/or durable power of attorney for health care, are a healthcare proxy clarifies and provides evidence of the wishes of an individual regarding end-of-life decisions. Terri Schiavo should impress upon laypersons and professionals alike the uncertainty of the context in which issues of continuation and termination are argued ethically. Nobody knows what Mrs. Schiavo would have wanted. She left no advance directive and in its absence her husband says one thing and her parents

For many years, medical assisted death has been disagreed upon with the Canadian Quebec legislation, Bill 52, An Act respecting end-of-life care. Terminal ill patients have been fighting rights with their incurable conditions which caused them unbearable suffering. In many situations, death is always unacceptable since life was given for a reason. We all must pass away one day, although for some individuals, death can be measured by time due to tragic news that they have been informed about. In means of measuring time, we would all like to know when and how our death would be given. “Living is not good, but living is well. The wise man, therefore, lives as well as he should, not as long as he can...He will always think of life in terms of quality not quantity…Dying early or late is of no relevance, dying well or ill is…life is not to be bought at any cost. – The Stoic philosopher Seneca (4 B.C.- 69 A.D).” (Shneidman, 2001, p. 5). Sue Rodriguez, who was an advocate for medical assisted death, fought for legal rights in 1993. She was diagnosed with Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) in 1991. In a video to the Parliament, she poured her heart out. “If I cannot give consent to my own death, whose body is this? Who owns my life?” (CBC Radio-Canada, 1993). She lost the battle against Supreme Court Canada to legalize assisted death under the Criminal Code of Canada. In 1994, Rodriguez was given a “constitutional exemption” which allowed assisted death under many conditions. In

The desires of a patient are essential in an ethical medical situation. The physician and court system generally respects the autonomy of patients to make their own decisions. In cases of incompetence or minors, these choices are usually granted to surrogate decision makers or the legal system itself. In the case of Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Department of Health (Menikoff, 2001), one can see where Nancy Cruzan, a patient in a persistent vegetative state (PVS), was not granted the right to have medical treatment removed. This landmark case presented the discussion of a right to die on a national forum. The reason for such debate is because of the ruling given Supreme Court of the United States in 1990. I contend that the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) was wrong in reaffirming the state of Missouri that there was not sufficient

Any member within the healthcare environment may be conflicted with some ethical decisions that have to be made. Ethics committees have been developed, and are required due to the number of ethical issues that present daily within hospitals and other health institutions. These committees are comprised of persons who assist patients, their families, and healthcare personnel in identifying, understanding, and quickly resolving ethical issues. Policies, procedures, and ethic codes are formulated around moral principles of beneficence, autonomy, non-maleficence, and justice.