Physician Assisted Suicide (PAS), has been a moral dilemma in the hot seat since the passing of Oregon’s Death with Dignity Act in 1997. All throughout the US, states have been trying to pass acts that allow people to die with dignity using PAS, the most recent being Colorado. PAS is a conflicting topic because it causes concern if the choice is morally ethical for the patient and for the others making these decisions like, doctors, psychologist, and other family members. PAS can cause conflict among religion and personal beliefs but it should be seen as an individual 's right not a communal right. The article referenced within this paper is “The Role of and Challenge for Psychologist in Physician Assisted Suicide” written by Shara M. Johnson, Robert J. Cramer, Mary Alice Conroy, and Brett O. Gardner in 2014. This article looks at the pros and cons of psychologist making decision on whether or not a patient is mentally capable of deciding to die with dignity. I chose the topic of PAS because I believe that a person has a right to die when they want if they suffer from a chronic illness or terminal disease.
…show more content…
The article looks at all arguments made for and against PAS when it comes to a psychologist helping a patient with the decision and how people have a chance to die with dignity. The beginning of “The Role of and Challenge for Psychologist in Physician Assisted Suicide”, gives a brief history of PAS and which states currently deem it legal like Oregon, Washington and Montana. Along with the history of PAS comes the pros and cons of assisted suicide, according to Johnson, Cramer, Conroy, & Gardner (2014) some of the pros included, “individuals have the right to oversee their own goals and destinies, which includes the manner and timing of their death” or that an “individual experiences unbearable suffering or permanent impairment, and death would be a merciful relief” (p. 584). With the positivity of PAS came the negative reactions as well like, “PAS is less expensive than extensive palliative treatment and might be more frequently used when medical resources are scarce” and “ legalizing PAS will lead to a slippery slope in which euthanasia and assisted death for patients not suffering from a terminal illness also become legal” (Johnson, Cramer, Conroy, and Gardner, 2014, p.584). Following the thoughts about PAS, Johnson and her colleges introduced how psychologist play a role in deciding whether or not a patient should receive assisted suicide. Psychologist are seen as the deal makers or breakers when a patient is considering suicide because they need to make sure the patient is not suffering from any type of mental breakdown and have full capacity of their mental state. Psychologist must follow codes that can be found in the “American Psychological Association Ethics Code” which protects themselves and their patients from doing any harm. One of the codes according to Johnson et. al. (2014) is “avoid harm” which means they prevent their patient from committing suicide under any circumstance (p. 585). From the talk about ethical codes found in the APA, psychologist must have their patients perform a PAS competence evaluation to determine if the patient is mentally healthy to make their own decisions. This evaluation includes a “standards of competence” which focuses on four elements of “(a) the ability to communicate choice, (b) factual understanding of information related to the decision, (c) appreciation of the situation and possible consequences, and (d) a rational understanding of information” and determining whether …show more content…
If a person knows for sure that they will not conquer their sickness then PAS could be a viable option to save their memory. I learned that patients have it tough when it comes to their will to live. People shouldn’t have to suffer when they know the end result is death. A psychologist isn’t completely necessary when it comes to assisted suicide, but I understand why one would be used if a person is having a mental breakdown. PSA decisions put psychologist in conflicting positions because they want to please their patient, but they don’t want to break an ethical code. Through this article I realised how complicated this topic is, but my stance does not change because I believe that terminally and chronically ill patients deserve a break in their
The article looks at all arguments made for and against PAS when it comes to a psychologist helping a patient with the decision and how people have a chance to die with dignity. The beginning of “The Role of and Challenge for Psychologist in Physician Assisted Suicide”, gives a brief history of PAS and which states currently deem it legal like Oregon, Washington and Montana. Along with the history of PAS comes the pros and cons of assisted suicide, according to Johnson, Cramer, Conroy, & Gardner (2014) some of the pros included, “individuals have the right to oversee their own goals and destinies, which includes the manner and timing of their death” or that an “individual experiences unbearable suffering or permanent impairment, and death would be a merciful relief” (p. 584). With the positivity of PAS came the negative reactions as well like, “PAS is less expensive than extensive palliative treatment and might be more frequently used when medical resources are scarce” and “ legalizing PAS will lead to a slippery slope in which euthanasia and assisted death for patients not suffering from a terminal illness also become legal” (Johnson, Cramer, Conroy, and Gardner, 2014, p.584). Following the thoughts about PAS, Johnson and her colleges introduced how psychologist play a role in deciding whether or not a patient should receive assisted suicide. Psychologist are seen as the deal makers or breakers when a patient is considering suicide because they need to make sure the patient is not suffering from any type of mental breakdown and have full capacity of their mental state. Psychologist must follow codes that can be found in the “American Psychological Association Ethics Code” which protects themselves and their patients from doing any harm. One of the codes according to Johnson et. al. (2014) is “avoid harm” which means they prevent their patient from committing suicide under any circumstance (p. 585). From the talk about ethical codes found in the APA, psychologist must have their patients perform a PAS competence evaluation to determine if the patient is mentally healthy to make their own decisions. This evaluation includes a “standards of competence” which focuses on four elements of “(a) the ability to communicate choice, (b) factual understanding of information related to the decision, (c) appreciation of the situation and possible consequences, and (d) a rational understanding of information” and determining whether …show more content…
If a person knows for sure that they will not conquer their sickness then PAS could be a viable option to save their memory. I learned that patients have it tough when it comes to their will to live. People shouldn’t have to suffer when they know the end result is death. A psychologist isn’t completely necessary when it comes to assisted suicide, but I understand why one would be used if a person is having a mental breakdown. PSA decisions put psychologist in conflicting positions because they want to please their patient, but they don’t want to break an ethical code. Through this article I realised how complicated this topic is, but my stance does not change because I believe that terminally and chronically ill patients deserve a break in their