The Pros And Cons Of Physician Assisted Suicide

Improved Essays
Americans will either be opposed or supportive when you mention Physician Assisted Suicide. In fact, 70 percent of Americans support the idea of allowing physicians to end a terminally ill patients life (Pickert, 2009). Although the surprisingly high percentage of supporters, only five states allow the act. Many Americans can understand why states support it, such as allowing terminally ill patients to die on their own terms. (Pickert, 2009). The opposing side although, gives strong points to give a better understanding as to why this is not a federal law, these include, federal ruling stating patients don’t have a constitutional right, doctors personal discourse and prescribing such drugs, also the lower cost of aid-in-dying care opposed to end-of-life care, these help to understand the Federal Governments’ federal policy surrounding this controversial act, or the lack there of. In 1997, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that Americans do not have a constitutional right to Physician assisted suicide (Levine, …show more content…
The Supreme Court has not yet made it a federal law; states though are allowed to make their own laws regarding the manner. Reasons as to why it is not a federal law are the federal ruling which states patients don’t have a constitutional right, doctors personal discourse and prescribing such drugs, also the lower cost of aid-in-dying care opposed to end-of-life care, also concerned that people may be coerced to go through with the act. Personally, I see assisted suicide as the simple way out, many times terminally ill patients live longer than they are expected to. There really is not a true way to determine if someone is accurately going to die. In simple terms, I believe this should be left as a state law and not a federal law, with a firm set of rules and several

Related Documents

  • Improved Essays

    For many, the cost comparison would lead them to choose physician-assisted suicide over life-sustaining treatments, but since physician-assisted suicide is not a legal all over the United States, families are put into debt because they do not have any other choice. American citizens should not be forced to go into debt because the government has not legalized a certain medical…

    • 1539 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Great Essays

    Glucksberg, Dr. Harold Glucksberg along with four other physicians and three terminally ill patients challenged Washington’s ban on PAS, asserting that the ban violates terminally ill patients’ Due Process rights as described in the Fourteenth Amendment. As in Vacco v. Quill, the Supreme Court decided 9-0 against the physicians. The basis of the court’s decision was that PAS is not a fundamental liberty interest protected by the Due Process Clause as the practice is “offensive to our national traditions and practices”. The court’s decision fails to take into consideration the fact that terminal sedation, heavily sedating patients and withholding food and water until they die, is legal and used widely in the practice of palliative treatment. The legalization of terminal sedation contradicts the court’s argument of intent, because when terminal sedation is used the doctor’s intent is to relieve pain by putting them into a deep unconscious state until they die.…

    • 2469 Words
    • 10 Pages
    Great Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Those for the legalization of assisted suicide point out that although the terms euthanasia and assisted suicide are often used interchangeably, they are not the same thing; in euthanasia the doctor is the one who carries out the act, while in assisted suicide the doctor merely supplies the means and the patient is left to administer it to themselves. This distinction is central to the argument that physicians would not be able to abuse this power were assisted suicide to be…

    • 1200 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Superior Essays

    However, Physician Assisted Suicide is defended by US Standards of Law and Medicine and should therefore be legal throughout the United States for patients with a terminal illness and life expectancy of 6 months or less. A common moral argument against Physician Assisted Suicide is that it disobeys the Hippocratic Oath: the set of moral guidelines for any doctor or administrator of medicine. The section which is specifically referenced by such opponents is “Neither will I administer a poison to anybody when asked to do so, nor will I suggest such a course” (INSERT CITATION). However, the Hippocratic Oath (the original version, in particular) fails to provide an effective basis for opposing PAS because it is irrelevant to modern medicine. One…

    • 1347 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Euthanasia In America

    • 970 Words
    • 4 Pages

    Their argument lacks supporting evidence and uses the slippery-slope fallacy. If Euthanasia goes against a person’s religious/moral views then the person does not have to participate. It is not forced Euthanasia and all doctors don’t have to participate if it goes against their moral code. Still, the biggest problem with legalizing Euthanasia is proper government regulation. Other countries have proved that a few people will abuse the option of assisted suicide/Euthanasia, but the U.S. can simply learn from their…

    • 970 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Although more than half of the United States does not believe in legalizing physician-assisted suicide, five states have already legalized this assistance, which is causing a huge ethical debate in the medical world (“State-by-State Guide to Physician-Assisted Suicide,” n.d.). People who are in favor of physician-assisted suicide are arguing for the respect of autonomy, individual liberty, and compassion. In contrast, people who are not in favor of physician-assisted suicide are arguing for the sanctity of life, fear of abuse, and professional integrity. Physician assisted suicide should be considered unethical in healthcare because of the potential for abuse and the duty of a healthcare provider is to do no harm and maintain life. The principle of non-maleficence and the theory of deontology support my argument against physician-assisted suicide by providing evidence on why it should be considered unethical.…

    • 899 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    The results of the surveys were based heavily on the wording of questions. When presented with the question containing the word “suicide” voters were more likely to vote no. When the same question was reworded to omit the word “suicide”, voters were more likely to vote yes. In both surveys conducted, however, over half of the voters said yes, doctors should be allowed by law to assist in ending a patient’s life if the patient meets the qualifications (Jones, Saad 2). When posing a similar survey question to qualified physicians, only about half agreed that the Act should be legal while the other half claimed euthanasia is never ethically justifiable.…

    • 1031 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Superior Essays

    It is agreed that no right is absolute and government can take away any of these rights for legitimate purpose, but if that individual’s right outweighs the governmental interest then the right is a fundamental. The choice between life and death is a deeply personal decision and therefore, prohibition on physician assisted suicide requires a direct incursion of bodily integrity; also, it is inconsistent with society 's basic conception of personal dignity. It can be said that it is not a general right to control the timing and manner of death but it is about right against intrusion which includes constitutional right to refuse life sustaining treatment or restrictions on suicide. A person who is competent and terminally ill has a right to make decision for himself. He has a right to decide when he wants to stop his pain and suffering and embrace a timely and dignified death.…

    • 1485 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Improved Essays

    This is not that case-- Medicine is used for healing in only some cases. Many times there is deadly side effects to almost all medicine in general, and with that, it isn’t healing that much in that case. Medicine which can’t heal anyone anymore shouldn’t be wasted, but if we let them choose how they want to end their own lives then it’s up to them but it’ll save them money and save resources for patients who need them who can be treated and healed. Medicine is just another excuse for an argument against Physician-assisted suicide, and use doctors feelings with patients as another excuse such as insurance providers and financial healthcare that will do abnormal enticement. This…

    • 1319 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    The goal of euthanasia is to help a person end extreme physical pain and/or psychological distress. This also helps reduce those individuals’ medical expenses, which may then be used to help others, as medicine is socialized in Europe. Much debate about euthanasia centers on the issue of whether it devalues life, or if it is immoral to take another’s life without letting the person live out their life. In 1997, the Supreme Court ruled twice that there is no constitutional precedent or right to assisted suicide. However, physician-assisted suicide is legal in a few states, while euthanasia remains illegal throughout the country.…

    • 1188 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays