This can be done by a physician in whom they can give a lethal dose of medication, in which the patient will request the drug; this drug would be used to end the life of the person requesting the lethal dose. This is all so called assisted suicide in many countries and in the U. S. Can we really put our lives in the hands of someone else? Can one person giving the liberty to take the life of another. If a family member is a vegetable and you are keeping them alive on a machine, is that doing Justice for the family member? WSDL you be selfish to want to put someone to sleep?
Our goal as a human race is to keep everyone alive and in modern medicine that is what they are trying to achieve. We do not want to change medicines way of thinking. We do not want medicines to end life as we know it. If we allow the physicians to take a life we would only be treating the homonyms and not trying to resolve them. When we have life, we should choose life. GOD has a plan for each and every one of us, and if he wants us to be a vegetable, that is what GOD wants and we should not question. Most Churches teach that euthanasia is a grave sin.
My wife’s niece is a doctor and she has stated that the administration wants all the doctors to be trained in compassionate care for the dying, and human comforts near the end of life. The administration would like all of us in the U. S. Get widespread education about the end of life care system that will take place. Opponents to assisted suicide would say no one has the right to end a life except GOD. In the United States, physicians assisted suicide goes against our morals and duties as human beings and it should not be legalized, and that is my opinion.
States classify euthanasia as criminal homicide statutes and the law states it is a felony. Michigan incarcerated Dry. Sovereign after he was found guilty of homicide after he helped in the active euthanasia of a man who had metamorphic lateral sclerosis. Dry. Sovereign only got convicted because he publicly flaunted his participation in a group of euthanasia cases. The right to die is not the fundamental liberty that is protected by the Due Process Clause, that no one cans assistance in helping committing suicide. Our laws do not permit the assisted suicide in this country and the law rejects it as history has shown us.
Due Process Clause is a safeguard from arbitrary denial of life, liberty, or property by the Government outside the sanction of law. Prior to passage of the Oregon Death with Dignity Act, opponents of assistance in dying argued that legalization would have serious harmful consequences. Specifically, they argued that the quality and availability of palliative are would decline, that the harms of legalization would affect certain vulnerable groups disproportionately, that legal assisted dying could not be confined to the competent terminally ill who voluntarily request assistance, and that the practice would result in frequent abuses.
Data from Oregano’s decade-long experience decisively refute the first three predictions. As to abuses, the record is not quite as clear, but if an appropriate framework for analysis is utilized, the most reasonable conclusion is that the risks of abuse do not outweigh the benefits of legalization. To he extent projected harmful consequences are relevant to the debate over legalization, Oregano’s experience argues in favor of legalization of assistance in dying. (Am J Biotech. 2009 dot: 10. 1080/15265160802654137. (Oregano’s 741, Amherst, NY 14226-0741, USA. [email protected] Net) Patient suffering at the end of life is happening and has been happening very quietly. Physician-assisted suicide (PAS) is on the rise with the aging baby boomer generation as the subject is coming to the forefront with the end of life care debate. The baby boomers are helping in turning the national attitude toward the doctor assisted suicide from ailing to compassion. Many baby boomers are saying they have the right to die on their own terms and without pain and suffering.
I swear to fulfill, to the best of my ability and Judgment, this covenant: I will respect the hard-won scientific gains of those physicians in whose steps I walk, and gladly share such knowledge as is mine with those who are to follow. I will apply, for the benefit of the sick, all measures [that] are required, avoiding those twin traps of overstatement [sic] and therapeutic nihilism. I will remember that there is art to medicine as well as science, and that armor, sympathy, and understanding may outweigh the surgeon’s knife or the chemist’s drug.
I will not be ashamed to say “l know not,” nor will I fail to call in my colleagues when the skills of another are needed for a patient’s recovery. I will respect the privacy of my patients, for their problems are not disclosed to me that the world may know. Most especially must I tread with care in matters of life and death? If it is given me to save a life, all thanks. But it may also be within my power to take a life; this awesome responsibility must be faced with great humbleness and awareness of my own frailty.
Above all, I must not play at God. I will remember that I do not treat a fever chart, a cancerous growth, but a sick human being, whose illness may affect the person’s family and economic stability. My responsibility includes these related problems, if I am to care adequately for the sick. I will prevent disease whenever I can, for prevention is preferable to cure. I will remember that I remain a member of society, with special obligations to all my fellow human beings that sound of mind and body as well as the infirm.
If I do not violate this oath, may I enjoy life and art, respected while I live and remembered with affection thereafter. May I always act so as to preserve the finest traditions of my calling and may I long experience the Joy of healing those who seek my help. (http://www. PBS. Org/high/ nova/doctors/oath_modern. HTML) To protect the people, laws are in place against euthanasia and assisted suicide and this way unscrupulous doctor and others cannot perform these types of abuses. No one wants to see anyone suffer.
The slippery slope argument worries many people about what if voluntary euthanasia become legal. People are worried that if we let this euthanasia start will be never being able to stop the process and there will be no turning back. Many people are up in arms and they do not want this law to take effect and they are pushing for a law to firm up the law already in place. Any rights will have the possibility to take on abuse. No one is saying that legalizing assisted suicide will lead to abuse, but opponents have suggested it.
Groups have suggested that we have begun in good faith and then motivated by compassion will lead us to unwanted killings. Religion has concerns that we are heading down the wrong path. Catholic leaders believe that life is the most basic gift of a loving GOD. We as a society where are morally obligated to use all he available medical procedures imaginable to save a life. We must care for our own life as well as others. Catholics rejects the right to legalize euthanasia. The Catholics “Religious identity correlates with attitudes toward the ethical status of assisting in suicide.
Catholics, Protestants and Orthodox Jews believe in the majority that it is unethical to assist, while Conservative, Reform and secular Jews say assistance is ethical. ” (The Louis Finniest Institute for Religious and Social Studies reported on its website in the document “Physician-Assisted Suicide Survey,” (accessed on Cot. 27, 006) All Americans do not want to have a healthcare spending implications that we all can not afford. The U. S. Spending per capita on health care is much more than any other countries due to our health are coverage’s that have growing rapidly. This is due to our expansion in coverage.
HOMO have do not care if their members pull the plug, because after the HOMO has exhausted all its treatment options they are released to hospice. Medicare will then pay for hospice and not the HOMO, so there is really no financial incentive to pressure terminal patients to end their lives. Homos at this time really do not have any cost savings. Choosing to die is not related to finances and it is well documented. Homos turn the care over to Medicare and Medicare reimburses hospice. The HOMO is out of the old ball game by this time and they will not influence the patient to choose assisted suicide. What is absolutely incredible to me is that someone would honestly argue that we should consider the cost savings to America by killing, or assisting in the suicide, of human beings. It seems almost unfathomable. However, even if we were to consider these figures, the savings only total approximately $10,000 per assisted suicide victim. The total paving of approximately $627 million is less than one percent of the total United States health care expenditures. The reason this figure is so low is because an extremely small percentage of Americans receiving health care would qualify for physician-assisted suicide.
We are not talking about the withholding or withdrawing of life-sustaining procedures. This is already legal, and widely utilized. We are talking about allowing a competent adult suffering from an incurable illness with less than six months of life to seek the assistance of a physician in actively ending the patient’s life. This number makes up less than 1/3 of of Americans each year, and those who do qualify, and who choose to die by assisted suicide, generally end their lives approximately three weeks before their natural death would have occurred. ” (Deck. 3, 2012, Martin Levin, “Physician-Assisted Suicide: Legality and Morality’) The end of life care is needed, but what can we do to help our family members? My mother died of cancer and hospice was the greatest gift that anyone could receive in the time of need, and they provided good palliative care. I could not image my mother having physician-assisted death at that time in my life. I did not want to lose her, but I wanted her to be very comfortable in her last days on this earth. I asked hospice if they could give her more morphine the last couple weeks, and they did Just that.
They supplied me with a bottle and I was able to give her as must as I thought was necessary. This was a value and benefit on the end of life care. She really did not suffer on the outside, but I do not know what she was going thru on the inside, but it gave me great satisfaction to know that she did not suffer. Lacking this sort of real world laboratory, what are we to make of the ethical arguments grading physicians’ involvement in their patients’ suicides? Bearing in mind Harrier’s law, which states that any philosophy which can be expressed in a nutshell physician involvement.
A physician caring for a terminally ill patient ought to be able to promise the patient that she will be there by the patient’s side until the end, no matter what twists the road may take along the way. Since some few patients will experience unbearable suffering and will autonomously request PAS, refusal to even consider the PAS option amounts to a form of patient abandonment. (Robert F. Weir, d. Physician Assisted Suicide, Date: 1997) Compassion and Choices is a right to die organization. They strive to prove and improve care and expand choices at the end of life.
The advocate, educates, and support at the end of life and this is their mission statement for the organization. Compassion and Choices are an organization the supports patients and their loved ones at the end of life. They help guide the patients and their loved ones to do research for a peaceful death. And if you do not think this is coming, you had better wake up America. The new health care law taking effect will teach and show us this part that we all may not want to happen, but it is coming. They will help in educating our public and health care professionals about the end of life choices.
They will help in legal and legislative matters as well. Compassion and Choices are helping physicians aid in dying laws. This is best known for physician assisted suicide for mentally competent and terminally ill patients. This organization also is a strong advocate for physicians who are targeted for over treatment of pain. They support and stand behind the physicians who over medicate patients who are suffering from chronic pain. Compassion and Choices helped a doctor get his license reinstated after they were revoked for administering to much morphine in treating a patient’s pain.
A counter argument were patients who opted for PAS were on hospice and they proved that palliative and hospice care are not always sufficient to treating severe suffering. There is still rare cases of persistent and untreatable suffering end of life care. Physicians do have the right to decline the patient’s right to request in assisting the end of life. The Hippocratic Oath is what doctor take to receive their state licenses, and some will never give that oath up and ill stand by it to the end.
Which, I applauded them for doing that, the only counter argument is that the Hippocratic Oath should be interpreted and modified as necessary according to an individual patient’s needs. Life sustaining treatment would only prolong suffering to these patients and many patients do not want to suffer at the end of life. I have heard that some patients have stopped eating and drinking to end their life as we know it. And death will usually occur one to three weeks afterward. I can say that if I had to not eat and drink for one to three weeks that would kill I and that would be too much suffering for anyone to endure.
I can say we have not seen the last of this debate, good or bad as it may seem the final resolution will take some time to review and debate. There is a group pushing for the physician assisted suicides to happen and become part of our society. It is legal in some states and it is Just a matter of time before all states make it legal. And under the current administration, it will become a reality in our society. The bill has been established in many states and they will be brought back up again. The physician assisted suicides (PAS) are legal in many other countries; it is Just a matter of time for the U.
S. Makes it legal. Attitude of the healthcare professional and professional integrity must be upheld. This objection to physician involvement in assisted suicide society decides that the benefits of assisted suicide are substantial and the risks are manageable, then rational policy would require legalizing the practice with appropriate safeguards. But, presumably, society would allow individuals to opt in or out of the role of assisting and would require no one to assist a suicide if that act violated conscience.
Physicians might then, as a group, argue that their professional integrity would be violated by participation in this policy and inform society that mom other group would have to be identified for this role. Nurses, pharmacists, and other health professionals might make analogous claims. If society viewed the involvement of physicians as highly desirable in order to achieve the benefits and safeguard against abuse, it could of course mandate physician participation as a condition of licenser. But no proposal this draconian has yet been put forth.
An argument from professional integrity may be easily misunderstood, in part because the concept is seldom appealed to today in most debates about medical ethics. First, t may be helpful to distinguish between personal and professional integrity. On this model, physicians arrive at their medical training with some existing values drawn from their religious and philosophical viewpoints and commitments and then subscribe to some additional values as a consequence of professing medicine as a calling or career. In a pluralistic society, we would not expect all physicians to bring the same set of personal moral values into medical practice.
But, assuming that physicians were to engage in extended and searching dialogue about their role and he nature of their practice, we might imagine them someday reaching reasonable consensus about the core moral commitments that make up their professional identity. ((Robert F. Weir, De. Physician Assisted Suicide, Date: 1997) Health care professionals and the general public mostly support the legal requirements for euthanasia and PAS. The law permits euthanasia or PAS for mental suffering but this possibility is not widely endorsed. The general public is more liberal towards euthanasia for advanced dementia than health care professionals.
We conclude that there is ample support for the law after eight years of legal euthanasia. Palliate Med. 2013 dot: 10. 1177/0269216312448507. Pub 2012 June 13. ) we can present argument for euthanasia. While these arguments seem to make a strong case for physician approval of and involvement in PAS, the opposing arguments are also quite weighty: 1. Opposition to PAS is not merely a matter of personal moral choice. Any proper understanding of professional integrity would require physicians to see that they can never be true to their role as healers while directly causing or participating in the patient’s death. 2. Safeguards are illusory.
As soon as PAS becomes a routine practice, abuses are bound to occur, probably in considerable embers. To think that safeguards would work is to take a highly idealized view of medical practice in the U. S. ; the realities of practice (especially among the poor and among stigmatize groups such as persons with disabilities, HIVE positive patients, etc. ) are far different. 3. While defenders of PAS assume that a reasonable system of hospice and palliative care options is in place and available, this is not so; and endorsement of PAS may further delay the day when our health system makes a true commitment to access to good palliative care. . Perhaps as a matter of social policy, small number of patients should be allowed to choose suicide in the face of should be extremely wary of physicians being placed in the role of the helpers. Just as inappropriate “metallization” has made other social problems worse instead of better, we should be wary of the metallization of terminal suffering and the assumption that physicians and drugs provide the proper answer to the human anguish of facing terminal illness and death. And we should be wary of this even if it were to develop that PAS does not constitute a violation of the physician’s professional integrity. . Assisting a patient’s suicide is, on its face, admission of incompetence. Proper care of dying patients, with close attention to their physical, emotional, and spiritual needs, will almost always reveal ways to relieve suffering and so to dissuade the patient from suicide. To assist the patient’s suicide is to take the easy way out and to fail to put enough time and energy into the case to be able to render truly competent terminal care. I wish to offer a cautious endorsement of PAS as a clinical option for U. S. Physicians.
But I will arrive there by a somewhat circuitous route. It is hard to give full attention to the “Pro” arguments when the opposing arguments appear to demand considerable respect and allegiance. It will therefore be more to the point to proceed by addressing the opposing arguments. Only if they can be shown to be quite a bit weaker than they first appear will it be worthwhile even to consider supporting PAS. Opponents claim that a patient with a serious illness and unresolved symptoms may not be capable of making objective judgments about assisted death.
For example, Kathleen Foley has argued that competence, rationality, and voluntaries are always doubtful because of a complex interrelationship of psychological, existential, and physiological factors. A further problem is that these factors are experienced not only by patients, but also by patients’ families and professional caregivers in what can become a spiral of distress. She maintains that the perceived distress in any one of these three groups amplifies the distress of the others.
This can exert potential undue influence and coercion by significant others and even by some clinicians, both of whom may be too supportive of a patient’s expressed desire for assisted death. Patients who are vulnerable during an illness, who may already perceive themselves as burdens on their families, may eel obligated to consider others’ suggestions about assisted death as well as the failure by others to argue against a patient’s tentative suggestion of assisted dying as a considered option.
The end result can be anxiety and depression for the patient, which may affect competence and rationality. (Bailed, W. F. , Dimaggio, J. R. , Shapiro, D. V. , & Sandusky, J. S. ( 1993). The request for assistance in dying: The need for psychiatric consultation. Cancer, 72, 2786-2791 . ) Conflict of interest – l. The debate on physician-assisted suicide tends to focus on the patient’s needs for life from pain and suffering. By physician-assisted suicide, one refers to the physician’s following the wishes of a patient by actively and intentionally aiding and abetting the death of that patient.
Physician-assisted suicide is distinguished from euthanasia, which includes cases in which the patient may be assisted by the physician to die but not necessarily with the full knowledge of the patient, as in the case of an unconscious, terminally ill person. “Thou shall not kill,” for instance, is an extraordinarily powerful, appealing, and all-but-universal ethical guideline. Yet most f us do not often, or comfortably, examine too closely its edges, where most human considers “thou shall not murder” a more accurate translation of the Biblical Hebrew. More specific to physicians, including, of course, psychiatrists, is the Hippocratic oath, whichвЂ”although it has had various forms over the centuries, and various translationsвЂ”is often used as if it were a clear, simple, single clinical guideline. It is not a clear, simple guideline. A serious discussion of its problems and clashes with practice, with other ethical guidelines, and with regulations, economic erasures, and laws would be timely and usefulвЂ”far more so than is currently admitted by those who have not read the Hippocratic Oath or who only vaguely remember it, or those who want it to be above dispute.
Some people wish it to be above dispute perhaps partly because to doubt or correct or edit any part of it might throw it all into question, and it is felt to be overall a good and sound document, protective of patients and of medicine as a good profession. (That said; let me remind you that in one recent translation, the Hippocratic Oath says, “l will give no deadly medicine to anyone if asked. “) (Article, Novo. 1, 1998, A Debate on Physician-Assisted Suicide, Lawrence Hartmann, M. D. ; Arthur Emerson, M. D.
Physician Services 1998, dot) Physicians have taken that oath to prolong life and to relieve suffering. Doctors do want to relieve our suffering by providing medication and to relief our suffering. They only want to help the patient and not help the patient to die, which is why they become physicians to uphold the oath. And if a physician does act outside his profession and actively kill a patient he will not feel very well and they would feel like they did not do their Job. A negative position would be the thought of mercy brought n this debate.
Pro argument group will say that relief of pain and suffering Justifies the act of assisted suicide. This assessment is misguided if it is not the patient, others can say that we need this type of mercy killing, but it is not their family member. Ask a person with a disability how they value their lives, they do not want to die. They really do want to live and breathe forever. My friend this week had to make the decision to remove all the machines and feed tubes from this father. Now advise the family of this and see what the truth is, they really want that person to live no tater what.
A pain medication that could be administered may cause death in killing the patient. Which do you really choose, physician-assisted death or medication-induced coma, so which one is Justified mercy killing. If the person in the first instance is exemplary of dignity and autonomy, how can society set itself up to decide or relegate to the physician the right to distinguish which person, in which situation, and from which culture should be assisted to die by the doctor? Psychiatrists should be most aware of the vulnerability of these value-laden motivations to be irrational and ego-synoptic.
Are physicians to simply follow a patient’s values and idiosyncratic notions of dignity and override our ethical positions of “do no harm,” “preserve life,” and, yes, “relieve suffering”? (Article, Novo. 01, 1998, A Debate on Physician-Assisted Suicide, Lawrence Hartmann, M. D. ; Arthur Emerson, M. D. Physician Services 1998, dot) In conclusion, I can think of no better way to end the argument for the negative case than by quoting the AMA guidelines (5), supported by PAP: “Life should be cherished despite disabilities and handicaps except when the prolongation would be inhumane and unconscionable.
Under these resistances, withholding or removing life-supporting meaner is ethical provided “For humane reasons, with informed consent, a physician may do what is medically necessary to alleviate severe pain and cease or omit treatment to permit a terminally ill patient to die when death is imminent. However, the physician should not intentionally cause death. ” In short, we don’t require doctors to kill. Anyone can do it. We need to use the power of medicine to improve the care of the terminally ill.
Legalization of physician-assisted suicide does not represent an argument for adoption of the practice as ethically sound. Article, Novo. 01, 1998, A Debate on Physician-Assisted Suicide, Lawrence Hartmann, M. D. ; Arthur Emerson, M. D. Physician Services 1998, dot) Improvement in end of life decision making which we are very upset about our actions if we make the decision to remove or refuse life- sustaining treatment. This often stems from failing to distinguish clearly between causing the patient’s death and merely allowing the patient to die.
If a patient is on a ventilator, he is still alive until the physician removes the ventilator. Most of the time the patient dies very soon after the removal of the ventilator, the physician wonders f he had done the right thing and if has done everything for that patient. The physician may even wonder if he caused that patient’s death, you know they think like that, I would. But it is not the physicians fault; it is the patient’s disease process.
Many physicians are comfortable without starting the treatment than they would be if they stop the process. The patient has the right to live on the ventilator which is an external support device that the patient has chosen. Many patients chose the right to not use the mechanical ventilator to keep their live going. If this need arises before he ventilator is need, then the ventilator should not be started. On the other hand if the ventilator was started, the ventilator should be discontinued once all the conditions have been met.
In this case the physician is not causing the death but Just merely removing the external medical support device that the patient did refuse in advance. Then the natural forces of nature take place once the ventilator is removed, and we know that the patient will die. The thing that we are all missing is that the disease is the cause of the patient’s death and it is not caused by the physician. I Just had a friend this last past week; they elected to remove this feeding tube and a respirator, which is called passive euthanasia.
That is the act of allowing a terminally ill person to die by either withholding or withdrawing life-sustaining support. What I believe is coming with the health care act, which no one has read. It will be if patients need to be keeping alive by a dialysis, he may be required to disconnect the dialysis machine and let the patient die; this is an example of passive euthanasia. I can see our government withholding of common treatments, such as antibiotics, necessary for continuance of life. Dysphasia it known all so as passive euthanasia.
The only good thing or bad thing is that only family member can elect or have the right to passive euthanasia, which restrictions are imposed. They do this because of the potential abuse that could get involved in the concept. Active Euthanasia Active euthanasia is a type of euthanasia in which a person who is undergoing intense suffering, and who has no practical hope of recovery is induced to death. It is also known as mercy killing. Generally, a physician performs active euthanasia and carries out the final-death causing act. Active euthanasia is performed entirely