Pro No matter how inhumane some may believe self assisted suicide is, it still should be legal here in America. Assisted suicide is an upcoming act that will one day become legal.
Case 2 What is physician aid-in-dying? Physician aid-in-dying PAD refers to a practice in which a physician provides a competent, terminally ill patient with a prescription for a lethal dose of medication, upon the patient's request, which the patient intends to use to end his or her own life.
For related discussion, see also End of Life Issues. What role does language play in discussions of aid-in-dying?
A variety of terms have historically been used to describe when a terminally ill patient uses a lethal dose of medication for the purpose of ending his or her life or having control over the timing of death.
However, implicit in the understanding of the word suicide is the notion of a premature death that is being hastened out of despair, therefore when mental illness impairs judgment, intervention to stop a suicide is ethically warranted because the person seeking suicide has lost his ability to carefully weigh the benefits and burdens of continued life.
Generally speaking, persons who are suicidal are treated as though their decision-making capacity is compromised and health care providers often intervene and provide life-sustaining treatments including involuntary psychiatric treatment over the objections of the patient.
They argue that, unlike the patients with impaired judgment who request suicide, terminally ill patients who request medication under the Act have the capacity to make a rational, autonomous decision to end their lives. In this context, the term is meant to reflect that physicians provide assistance to patients who are otherwise going to die, and who seek help to control the timing and circumstances of their death in the face of end-of-life suffering they deem intolerable.
Here we use the term physician aid-in-dying to reflect the practice that is legal under the Washington Death with Dignity Act. Recent research has detailed the need for open and honest discussion on end of life issues. This discussion should supersede any debate over the use of particular terms or language.
Acknowledging the power of both historic and contemporary terminology, will help flesh out both sides of this sensitive and powerful debate.
Is physician aid-in-dying PAD the same as euthanasia? In physician aid-in-dying, the patient must self-administer the medications; the "aid-in-dying" refers to a physician providing the medications, but the patient decides whether and when to ingest the lethal medication.
Euthanasia is illegal in every state, including Washington.
Some other practices that should be distinguished from physician aid-in-dying include: When a competent adult patient makes an informed decision to refuse life-sustaining treatment, their wishes are generally respected. The right of a competent adult patient to refuse life-sustaining treatments is supported by law.
Pain medication that may hasten death: Often a terminally ill, suffering patient may require dosages of pain medication that have side effects that may hasten death, such as impairing respiration. Using the ethical principle of double effect as the foundational argument, it is generally held by most professional societies, and supported in court decisions, that this action is justifiable.
Since the primary goal and intention of administering these medications is to relieve suffering, the secondary outcome of potentially hastening death is recognized as an expected and acceptable side-effect in a terminally ill patient.
This term refers to the practice of sedating a terminally ill patient to the point of unconsciousness, due to intractable pain and suffering that has been refractory to traditional medical management. Such patients are imminently dying, usually hours or days from death.
Often other life-sustaining interventions continue to be withheld CPR, respirator, antibiotics, artificial nutrition and hydration, etc.
In the rare instances when pain and suffering is refractory to treatment even with expert clinical management by pain and palliative care professionals, palliative sedation may legally be employed. Is physician aid-in-dying PAD ethically permissible? The ethics of physician aid-in-dying continue to be debated.
Some argue that PAD is ethically permissible see arguments in favor. Often this position is argued on the grounds that PAD may be a rational choice for a dying person who is choosing to escape unbearable suffering at the end of life.
Furthermore, the physician's duty to alleviate suffering may, at times, justify providing aid-in-dying. These arguments rely on respect for individual autonomy, recognizing the right of competent people to choose the timing and manner of death in the face of a terminal illness.
Others have argued that PAD is not ethically permissible because PAD runs directly counter to the traditional duty of the physician to preserve life and to do no harm see arguments against.
Furthermore, many argue if PAD were legal, abuses would take place, as the social forces that condone the practice are a slippery slope that could lead to euthanasia. For instance, the disabled, poor or elderly might be covertly pressured to choose PAD over more complex and expensive palliative care options.
What are the arguments in favor of physician aid-in-dying PAD? Those who argue that PAD is ethically justifiable offer the following arguments: Decisions about time and circumstances of death are personal.
Competent people should have right to choose the timing and manner of death. Justice requires that we "treat like cases alike. For patients who are suffering but who are not dependent on life support, such as respirators or dialysis, refusing treatment will not suffice to hasten death.Abstract: The debate on legalizing euthanasia and assisted suicide has a broad range of participants including physicians, scholars in ethics and health la w, politicians, and the general public.
"It should be considered as much of a crime to make someone live who with justification does not wish to continue as it is to take life without consent" (Pros and Cons of Self-Assisted Suicide 1). with this being said it proves that self assisted suicide should be completely legal in the United States to make Americans not suffer and choose to end their lives without the government's consent.
Full text of "Assisted suicide in the United States: hearing before the Subcommittee on the Constitution of the Committee on the Judiciary, House of Representatives, One Hundred Fourth Congress, second session, April 29, " See other formats. May 20, · It is important to note that both terms, “physician assisted suicide” and “physician aid-in-dying” are value-laden and may reflect the speaker or writer’s political or ideological support for or objection to the practice.
Recent research has detailed the need for . Physician-Assisted Suicide is legal in all of the following states except: A.
New Jersey C. Oregon What is the eighth leading cause of death in the United States. a. sw Which one is not a value of " Feminists Ethics" a) Generosity The following are arguments in favor of Physician-Assisted Suicide except?
A. Respect for. There are strong arguments for and against easing the legal constraints on physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia in the United States. Public-opinion polls suggest that a majority of people.