Death with Dignity or Assisted Suicide Physician-assisted suicide, also known as physician aid-in-dying, PAD, or death with dignity is a practice in which physicians can provide terminally ill patients lethal doses of medicine, per their request (Jaret). It has only been used when every other option has been exhausted and the patient has six or less months to live, in which they would be suffering. Both those arguing for and those arguing against physician-assisted suicide believe that life is valuable. PAD is currently legal in California, Oregon, Vermont, and Washington. It is also legal upon court ruling in Montana. Physician assisted suicide is not legal in 41 states and 4 states have no laws addressing the issue. There is a surfeit of
…show more content…
While Anderson and Braddock’s opinions on the topic of physician-assisted death greatly differ, they are based off of the same fundamental belief; that is: human life is valuable. Braddock believes that life is individual and “decisions about time and circumstances of death are personal.” He feels that every person has the right to make their own decision about when and how they will die. One of the fundamental statements in the argument in favor of physician-assisted suicide is that it is done with compassion. It a response to the unrelenting dolor of a loved one, because life is valuable and should not be lived through suffering (Braddock III). Anderson also believes in the value of life. He feels that the best form of compassion for the terminally ill is pain management, “…hospice care, and fellowship [to] accompany [the patient] in their last days.” He avows that death with dignity violates the law by determining that some lives are no longer “worth living.” A fundamental statement in the argument against PAD is that doctors should provide adequate end of life care rather than hastened death. He holds that we should have social solidarity and compassion with the terminally ill rather than offering them a hurried end. Anderson’s belief is based on sanctity of life in that no person should be intentionally killed, while Braddock’s belief is based on the quality of life in that no person should be forced to
While Anderson and Braddock’s opinions on the topic of physician-assisted death greatly differ, they are based off of the same fundamental belief; that is: human life is valuable. Braddock believes that life is individual and “decisions about time and circumstances of death are personal.” He feels that every person has the right to make their own decision about when and how they will die. One of the fundamental statements in the argument in favor of physician-assisted suicide is that it is done with compassion. It a response to the unrelenting dolor of a loved one, because life is valuable and should not be lived through suffering (Braddock III). Anderson also believes in the value of life. He feels that the best form of compassion for the terminally ill is pain management, “…hospice care, and fellowship [to] accompany [the patient] in their last days.” He avows that death with dignity violates the law by determining that some lives are no longer “worth living.” A fundamental statement in the argument against PAD is that doctors should provide adequate end of life care rather than hastened death. He holds that we should have social solidarity and compassion with the terminally ill rather than offering them a hurried end. Anderson’s belief is based on sanctity of life in that no person should be intentionally killed, while Braddock’s belief is based on the quality of life in that no person should be forced to