The mystery of mortality and death has perplexed humans for centuries. Many individuals question, “What happens when we die?” and “Why do bad things happen to good people?” One asks themselves, who genuinely possesses the right to determine who can live and who must die? Few countries and American states allow legalized participation in physician assisted suicide (PAS) which permits individuals to make the choice regarding whether they live or die based on their inevitable suffering due to disease. The Netherlands is among one of those few countries which views euthanasia PAS as advantageous. Where does intolerable suffering initiate and conclude, and when the boundary of mortality and ethics become so compromised that humans are manipulating
…show more content…
Typically the individual seeking PAS has a painful terminal illness and is the one to perform the “last act”. Both the physician and patient are aware and comprehend that the patient intends to use the medication or intervention method to commit suicide. PAS and euthanasia are commonly misperceived as interchangeable entities. Euthanasia is an inclusive term which describes the medical process of a sickly patient ending his/her life, rather than the continuation of suffering until an inevitable death. The main discrepancy is that Euthanasia involves the physician intentionally ending the life of his or her patient. These acts are considered a “mercy-killing” with the intent to act as a means of compassion; to end ones suffering. Oppositely, with Euthanasia the patient does not necessarily provide the consent to the third party to perform the “last act”. There are two types of Euthanasia: Voluntary active and Non-voluntary active. Voluntary active euthanasia involves the patient’s explicit request and informed consent for intentional administering of medication or other intervention to cause death. Non-voluntary active euthanasia is intentionally administering medication or other intervention to cause death, without explicit request and/or informed consent, due to the client being incapable of expressing their desire or concern. The third party acts in the absence …show more content…
Individuals who are for legalization of PAS believe that a competent patient should be to choose the timing and manner of their death. There is the belief that a terminally ill patient has the right to refuse specific medical treatment plans if it only prolongs their death. Moreover, if an individual’s quality of life is hindered with consequences such as a loss of independence, loss of self and functional capacities to the point that there is an inability to relieve the suffering, then PAS is viewed as an act of compassion. Society believes in preserving life, illegal PAS excessively limits personal liberties by disallowing a terminally ill person with a strong desire to end their life. Lastly, more transparency between patient and physicians could promote better end of life
Typically the individual seeking PAS has a painful terminal illness and is the one to perform the “last act”. Both the physician and patient are aware and comprehend that the patient intends to use the medication or intervention method to commit suicide. PAS and euthanasia are commonly misperceived as interchangeable entities. Euthanasia is an inclusive term which describes the medical process of a sickly patient ending his/her life, rather than the continuation of suffering until an inevitable death. The main discrepancy is that Euthanasia involves the physician intentionally ending the life of his or her patient. These acts are considered a “mercy-killing” with the intent to act as a means of compassion; to end ones suffering. Oppositely, with Euthanasia the patient does not necessarily provide the consent to the third party to perform the “last act”. There are two types of Euthanasia: Voluntary active and Non-voluntary active. Voluntary active euthanasia involves the patient’s explicit request and informed consent for intentional administering of medication or other intervention to cause death. Non-voluntary active euthanasia is intentionally administering medication or other intervention to cause death, without explicit request and/or informed consent, due to the client being incapable of expressing their desire or concern. The third party acts in the absence …show more content…
Individuals who are for legalization of PAS believe that a competent patient should be to choose the timing and manner of their death. There is the belief that a terminally ill patient has the right to refuse specific medical treatment plans if it only prolongs their death. Moreover, if an individual’s quality of life is hindered with consequences such as a loss of independence, loss of self and functional capacities to the point that there is an inability to relieve the suffering, then PAS is viewed as an act of compassion. Society believes in preserving life, illegal PAS excessively limits personal liberties by disallowing a terminally ill person with a strong desire to end their life. Lastly, more transparency between patient and physicians could promote better end of life