Physician Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia have been a huge ethical conflict throughout time. PAS and Euthanasia has been one of the most controversial topic in the health care industry. As future Health Care Administrators and patients, we need to be aware of the state laws, moral and ethical issues that arise with administering PAS to occur in our hospitals. We need to analyze each case carefully and look into the specifics without rushing to a decision.
PAS is often confused with Euthanasia however the two terminologies are quite different. Physician Assisted Suicide is when the physician provides the means for the patient to commit suicide such as giving the necessary information or by prescribing the drug to help the patient take their …show more content…
According to Ipsos, a survey taken in 2015 showed that 56% of respondents support to legalize PAS and euthanasia only for terminally ill patients, while 29% of respondents believed it should be illegal (graph on page 5). One main concern is the does a person have absolute right to decide what they want to do with their body? People who support PAS and euthanasia claim that “autonomy is the right of a person to control his or her body and life decision” (Manning, 1998, p. 26). If a person has a right to control their body, they also have the right to decide when they want to end their life. Thus, by prohibiting PAS and euthanasia we are prohibiting their freedom to choose when they want to die. Secondly, Dr. Manning (1998) concludes that “the more compassionate treatment for such terminally ill patients is a quick merciful end since its treatment is generally far less successful than traditional medical and psychological means” (p. 42). People claim that by keeping an terminally ill patient alive you are putting them through unbearably pain and prolonging unnecessary suffering when you can easily just let them die a peaceful and merciful death. Thirdly, people think they are morally doing the right course of action by PAS and euthanasia by relieving the patient of pain relief. According to Gallup, a …show more content…
In 1938, a group founded in New York as the Euthanasia Society of America (ESA) wanted the government to allow euthanasia, physician assisted suicide, and involuntary “mercy-killing” of people who are disabled (ALL, 2013). Throughout the years, ESA tried legalizing euthanasia but was unsuccessful then began to try and educate the public about the benefits of PAS and euthanasia. During 1975, the ESA believed that the inclusion of euthanasia in their name was hindering them from successfully convincing the public to join their crusade. They decided to officially change their name from ESA to the Society for the Right to Die (SDR) (ALL, 2013). In 1967, SDR had two “groundbreaking successes: CA “Natural Death Act” became law and NJ Supreme Court decided the first “right to die” case, ruling in favor or a “constitutional right to privacy” which includes a patient’s decision” (ALL, 2013). After several name changes the group officially changed their name to Partnership for Caring (PCF) in the year 2000. All though PFC failed to legalize euthanasia they were able to legalize physician assisted suicide in states such as: Oregon, Washington, Montana, Vermont, Colorado, and
PAS is often confused with Euthanasia however the two terminologies are quite different. Physician Assisted Suicide is when the physician provides the means for the patient to commit suicide such as giving the necessary information or by prescribing the drug to help the patient take their …show more content…
According to Ipsos, a survey taken in 2015 showed that 56% of respondents support to legalize PAS and euthanasia only for terminally ill patients, while 29% of respondents believed it should be illegal (graph on page 5). One main concern is the does a person have absolute right to decide what they want to do with their body? People who support PAS and euthanasia claim that “autonomy is the right of a person to control his or her body and life decision” (Manning, 1998, p. 26). If a person has a right to control their body, they also have the right to decide when they want to end their life. Thus, by prohibiting PAS and euthanasia we are prohibiting their freedom to choose when they want to die. Secondly, Dr. Manning (1998) concludes that “the more compassionate treatment for such terminally ill patients is a quick merciful end since its treatment is generally far less successful than traditional medical and psychological means” (p. 42). People claim that by keeping an terminally ill patient alive you are putting them through unbearably pain and prolonging unnecessary suffering when you can easily just let them die a peaceful and merciful death. Thirdly, people think they are morally doing the right course of action by PAS and euthanasia by relieving the patient of pain relief. According to Gallup, a …show more content…
In 1938, a group founded in New York as the Euthanasia Society of America (ESA) wanted the government to allow euthanasia, physician assisted suicide, and involuntary “mercy-killing” of people who are disabled (ALL, 2013). Throughout the years, ESA tried legalizing euthanasia but was unsuccessful then began to try and educate the public about the benefits of PAS and euthanasia. During 1975, the ESA believed that the inclusion of euthanasia in their name was hindering them from successfully convincing the public to join their crusade. They decided to officially change their name from ESA to the Society for the Right to Die (SDR) (ALL, 2013). In 1967, SDR had two “groundbreaking successes: CA “Natural Death Act” became law and NJ Supreme Court decided the first “right to die” case, ruling in favor or a “constitutional right to privacy” which includes a patient’s decision” (ALL, 2013). After several name changes the group officially changed their name to Partnership for Caring (PCF) in the year 2000. All though PFC failed to legalize euthanasia they were able to legalize physician assisted suicide in states such as: Oregon, Washington, Montana, Vermont, Colorado, and