Ryan T. Anderson's article titled “Physician-Assisted Suicide is Always Wrong” begins with Anderson setting the stage of the idea of Physician Assisted Suicide (PAS) being introduced with stories of patients diagnosed with terrible diseases. Anderson describes the act of eighteen states considering legalizing PAS a “grave mistake”, and describes a more merciful alternative of doctors giving patients the means to ease their pain as they await their demise. Anderson also quotes Victoria Reggie Kennedy, who believes that most people would prefer a death surrounded by loved ones, and a PAS would be cold, unloving and extreme. Anderson also claims that this would be contrary to the Hippocratic Oath and that nobody should be legally allowed to kill
…show more content…
The alternative way is Euthanasia, which Anderson describes as, “the intentional killing of a patient by doctor”. Anderson claims that this can only lead to Euthanasia because if we are to be logically compassionate, we can’t discriminate the option from patients who are unable to administer the deadly drugs themselves on account of being handicapped in some way. Anderson also states that there is no constitutional right to physician-assisted suicide. Anderson then again quotes an article from The Heritage Foundation Backgrounder, which states four reasons that PAS is a bad idea. The article claims first that it endangers the weak, despite failing safeguards with evidence that in three countries in Europe, “thousands” of cases have been found of doctor’s killing patients without a request. The second claim is that PAS corrupts the use of medicine as a tool for healing, and warps it into a tool for causing harm, further damaging the trust between doctor and patient. The third claim is that it would damage intergenerational family relationships, causing society to view the elderly as weak and …show more content…
Then we can accurately assess whether or not the patient is in their right mind to be making the decision. I believe with those steps in place, we can avoid any illegal euthanizing being made by
The alternative way is Euthanasia, which Anderson describes as, “the intentional killing of a patient by doctor”. Anderson claims that this can only lead to Euthanasia because if we are to be logically compassionate, we can’t discriminate the option from patients who are unable to administer the deadly drugs themselves on account of being handicapped in some way. Anderson also states that there is no constitutional right to physician-assisted suicide. Anderson then again quotes an article from The Heritage Foundation Backgrounder, which states four reasons that PAS is a bad idea. The article claims first that it endangers the weak, despite failing safeguards with evidence that in three countries in Europe, “thousands” of cases have been found of doctor’s killing patients without a request. The second claim is that PAS corrupts the use of medicine as a tool for healing, and warps it into a tool for causing harm, further damaging the trust between doctor and patient. The third claim is that it would damage intergenerational family relationships, causing society to view the elderly as weak and …show more content…
Then we can accurately assess whether or not the patient is in their right mind to be making the decision. I believe with those steps in place, we can avoid any illegal euthanizing being made by