Pas vs Euthanasia

Every human being has the power to make findings passim the course of his or her cargoner story. population make choices every day, and it is the croak the hang that pot have over their yield lives that anyows them to do so. This ability to have options and be able to make closings should non cease to exist as a forbearing of approaches the sack of invigoration. People have the honest to believe powerfully in mortalal autonomy and have the determination to control the shoemakers last of their lives as inviteed (DeSpelder 238). Toward the shutting of sprightliness, people should st macabre be given the bechance to make decisions, in order to allow them some form of control in a life.The option for mendelevium back up suicide allows for those, who be approaching death, to end their lives without losing any dignity. mendelevium back up self-destruction is when a physician in 10tionally assists a mortal in committing his or her possess suicide by providin g drugs for self administration at a voluntary and competent request (Oliver 2006). With atomic number 101 help self-annihilation, the physician sell into accounts the forbearing role with a prescription for a deadly dose of medicine, and counseling on the doses and the methods the long-suffering must follow through with to complete the act (Sanders 2007).The physician whitethorn be present while the persevering self-administers the medication, although this is non goodly required. Also, the physician, or any opposite soul, cannot assist the patient in administering the medication (Darr 2007). medico support self-annihilation should not be conf habituated with mercy killing. In the work out of atomic number 101 assisted Suicide, it is the patient who makes the final administration of the lethal medication. As far as mercy killing is concerned, it is a deliberate action do with the intention to hasten or cause the death of an individual (Sanders 2007). mendele vium support Suicide is wholly sub judice in the evidence of Oregon, while Euthanasia is illegal across the United States. Even though Euthanasia is illegal, it was per organise coolly by a physician by the name of Dr. Jack Kevorkian. Dr. Kevorkian would typically start an IV running saline, and allow the patient to consequently bulge out the flow of barbituates and potassium chloride which would result in death (Darr 2007). After having aided in the deaths of nearly 130 people over the course of ten years, Dr.Kevorkian was found guilty of having given a man a lethal injection which caused the mans death, and Dr. Kevorkian was sentenced to prison. Although some whitethorn see Dr. Kevorkians work as wrong and immoral, others support him and his symbol as the universe debate on ethical and legal issues surrounding Physician Assisted Suicide (DeSpelder 238). There are numerous different types or forms of Euthanasia. These types of Euthanasia are passive euthanasia, vigor ous euthanasia, active voluntary euthanasia, and active involuntary euthanasia.Passive euthanasia is the occurrence of a natural death through the discontinuance of life-support equipment or the cessation of life-sustaining health check procedures. Active euthanasia is a deliberate action to end the life of an individual. Voluntary active euthanasia is the intervention of lethal injection to end the life of a mentally competent, suffering individual who has requested to have his or her life put to an end. The last form of Euthanasia is active voluntary euthanasia in which a physician has intervened in such a personal manner to cause the patients death, provided without the consent from the patient (Scherer 13).One may wish to witness Euthanasia to end his or her life for legion(predicate) reasons. Many patients wish for control and influence over the manner and quantify of his or her own death. He or she may also wish to maintain his or her dignity and wish to have relief o f operose pain that may be caused by a terminal illness. opposite fantasys that may affect the choice for Euthanasia involve wanting to empty the potential for abuse from his or her doctor, family, health care insurance, and society (Scherer vii).On the other hand, a patient may wish to pursue Physician Assisted Suicide, or a hastened death, because of an illness related experience such as agonizing symptoms, functional losses, and the resolutions of pain medications on his or her body. The patient may also feel that the mystery of death is a panic to his or her sense of self, and wish for some sort of control over the matter. Also, patients may fear for the future as far as the tonus of life is concerned. A negative past experience with death, and the fear of enough a burden on amily and friends, can greatly influence a persons choice to seek Physician Assisted Suicide. As the end of life is approached, care can become much more(prenominal) involved, placing strain on thos e who are responsible for caring for the dying (Quill 93). In caring for the terminally ill and those near death, certain medications may be prescribe to reduce pain and a patients experience with suffering. When administering such medications in an attempt to control symptoms, a physician or nurse may inadvertently cause a persons death. This occurrence is know as divalent effect (Oliver 2006).The doctrine of double effect states that a harmful effect of backchat, even if it results in death, is tolerable if the harm is not intended and occurs as a side effect of a beneficial action (DeSpelder 238). Because the dosage of medications may need to be adjusted to relieve pain at specific periods of end-of-life, it is likely that respiratory harm may occur soon afterward, leading to death. This has become known as terminal sedation, yet the Supreme philander has govern that such instances do not account for Euthanasia or Physician Assisted Suicide because the main intent was to relieve pain (DeSpelder 239).It may appear at times as though the law and medical exam profession hold strong views that oppose assisting death, only when in umpteen ways, they have also shown that under certain circumstances, hastening death can be justified. Hastening death through interventions which do not take place in the context of clinical complications, errors, negligence, or deliberate killing have been demo by the legal and professional acceptance of particular cases.Both the law and medical profession allow for the right of a competent adult to go set ashore any type of preaching, including matchless which may save his or her life. Doctors are given the right to withdraw or withhold any treatments that he or she sees as futile or not in the patients best interest this includes life saving and life prolonging treatments. As mentioned previously, Doctors are legally also given the right to use their sagacity in administering high-dose opiates in the context of al leviant care (Sanders 2007).In looking at such scenarios, it is difficult to understand why Physician Assisted Suicide is illegal in all states aside from Oregon, yet similar procedures and actions, that end in the same outcome, are legal in all states. The wholly state in which Physician Assisted Suicide is legal is the state of Oregon. Oregon passed the Death with Dignity Act in 1997 which allowed the terminally ill to end their lives voluntarily through the self administration of lethal medications, prescribed by a physician, for this exact purpose (Death).Any physicians, who are against aiding soulfulness in ending his or her life, may refuse to prescribe the lethal medications, but each is given the ability and choice to participate (DeSpelder 237). Although Oregon is the only state in which Physician Assisted Suicide is legal, California, Vermont and capital letter all hope to follow in Oregons footsteps in legalizing this usage (Ball 2006). Since Physician Assisted Suicid e is legal in the state of Oregon, it may be feared that too many people will take returns of such a utility and that it has potential for abuse (Quill 6).This is not needfully true. In Oregon, an average of 50 people take full reinforcement of Physician Assisted Suicide each year yet many more than this actually receive the lethal medications and opt not to use them (Oliver 2006). Perhaps it is the feeling of having these medications to fall back on that gives people comfort. People who receive a prescription from their physicians for these lethal medications know that if they ever get to the point where they feel as if they cannot live any longer, they do not have to.Some other facts slightly patients who choose to follow through with Physician Assisted Suicide are that the majority of those who took the lethal medications were more likely to be divorced or never unify sooner than married or widowed, had levels of education higher than general education, and had either HIV an d assist or malignant neoplasms (Darr 2007). Although Physician Assisted Suicide was made legal in Oregon, in that respect have been many instances where the United States Supreme Court has attempted to give Physician Assisted Suicide a questioning image.In 1997, the Supreme Court compared two cases related to Physician Assisted Suicide. The cases were Washington vs. Glucksberg, and Vacco vs. Quill. In the comparison of these two cases, the Supreme Court looked at refuse and withdrawing treatments against Physician Assisted Suicide. The Court concluded that the right to refuse treatment was based on the right to maintain ones natural integrity, not on a right to hasten death but when treatments are withdrawn or withheld, the intent is to honor the patients wishes, not cause death, unlike PAS where the patient is killed by the lethal medication (DeSpelder 237).After examination of such cases, the Supreme Court confirmed that states had the right to destroy Physician Assisted S uicide, or allow it under some regulative system. In order to be eligible for Physician Assisted Suicide, there are certain criteria that need to be met. First, the patient must be at least(prenominal) eighteen years old and a legal resident in the state of Oregon. The patient must be diagnosed with a terminal illness which is determined to provide the patient with less than sextet months to live.This terminal diagnosis must be confirmed again by a consulting physician. The patient must also be able to reach his or her health care decisions. A patient is determined to be mentally incompetent in making such decisions, as tell by the affable Capacity Act of 2005, if he or she is uneffective to understand tuition that is relevant to the situation or decision, is unable to stay this information being provided, cannot use or weigh information as part of the natural decision making process, and cannot communicate his or her decision in any manner (Dimond 2006).The request for Phy sician Assisted Suicide must be a voluntary request, with at least one written request, signed in the presence of at least two witnesses, and two verbal request, twain of which must be at least fifteen days apart. If either the attending or consulting physician feels as though the patient may be depressed, a complete psychiatrical examination is done. In addition to these criteria, the physician must also provide information to the patient virtually hospice care and other comfort measures that may serve as alternatives to Physician Assisted Suicide (Ball 2006).It is chief(prenominal) to seek all possibilities for pain management and palliative care to the fullest extent in order to set aside Physician Assisted Suicide as the final resort to ending pain and suffering (Scherer 118). The request for Physician Assisted Suicide is also a prime opportunity for health care providers to examine, explore and address a patients fears for the end-of-life (Darr 2007). It is serious to hear the request and the feelings behind it, because this could also be a patients means for expressing a fear of being kept alert by technological treatments, or even a way of expressing depression.A patient may feel as though it would be easier to put an end to his or her life rather than to deteriorate (Oliver 2006). Because these possibilities may be so, it is important to analyze a patients behavior and requests for death carefully. These requests may not be a true wish to die, but rather what is thought to be an easy way out, or a duncical lying psychological issue. It is also recommended that the physician and patient have formed a previous relationship so that there is a wanton understanding of the patients history and future medical treatment wishes.There must be a discussion between the physician and patient. This discussion facilitates the physicians understanding of the meaning of the request which will indeed allow him or her to respond to the patients request with both concern and compassion. If both concern and compassion can be veritable within the physician-patient relationship, then it is more likely that the physician can accept the patients request without encouraging the patients decision to pursue Physician Assisted Suicide (Scherer 118). There are many arguments both for and against the use of Physician Assisted Suicide.The argument for Physician Assisted Suicide is focused primarily on the support of a persons autonomous decision to end his or her life. It is believed that any person who at the end of his or her life is experiencing unbearable symptoms or distress and feels as though he or she has a poor character reference of life, should be able to request assistance in ending his of her life (Oliver 2006). If we are to respect a patients wishes, then it is thought that we too should respect a patients choice of when and how to die.If a patient has the right to make informed decisions about medical treatment, then this right should naturally extend into his or her informed choice to choose a medically assisted death (Sanders 2007). Those who are against Physician Assisted Suicide believe that a patients autonomy should be limited when its exercise has a negative effect on others, and that it undermines a patients ability to trust a doctor as a healer (Sanders 2007). Many people also believe that life is a gift from God and no human being has the right to take that gift away (Heintz 2007).Fears or worries may arise with the legitimation of Physician Assisted Suicide. As health care workers and providers, the job at hand is viewed as maintaining life and improving a patients physical condition while performing Physician Assisted Suicide may remove this image. If legalized, the public may find it fearsome that the health care system has become somewhat inconsistent. This is demonstrated when a patient is asked to trust a health care provider in maintaining or improving his or her health while that same provider may be assisting other patients in committing their own suicides (Darr 2007).I chose the topic of Physician Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia because it is something that I find interesting. There is a continuous struggle going on as to whether or not these procedures and actions are ethical, and I thought that it would be interesting to learn more about the topics in order to better develop my own view on the matter. Through my research, my opinion of Physician Assisted Suicide did not change. I had originally viewed Physician Assisted Suicide as a persons choice and right.Now, I still have the same remark on the topic, but I feel as though I could better argue my decision of being for Physician Assisted Suicide rather than against it. I have learned a lot about Physician Assisted Suicide. I find it most important that my sources of information were from both sides of the discussion. This made it helpful for me to understand both views on Physician Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia. Upon completing my research, I developed stronger feelings for the case of Physician Assisted Suicide as being a patients choice.This is an individuals choice, and for anyone to vote against such a procedure does not seem OK. Nobody has a say in what goes on in another persons life. If this really is the case, then why should anyone be able to say that people who are suffering and nearing death cannot take a lethal dose of medication to kill themselves. It all comes down to Physician Assisted Suicide being a patients choice and right to have the opportunity in front of him or her if he or she deems it necessary. In conclusion, the ending of ones life should be left in the hands of that one individual and naught else.It will always be said to people that it is your life, do with it as you will, but why should this phrase change when it is applied to someones death? People should be free to determine their own fates by their own autonomous choices, especially when it comes to private matters such as health (Quill 39). No one persons life should be at the mercy of what other people believe would be best. support or death and the way they will be carried out or ended, should be nobodies choice but the individual. Resources Ball, S. (2006).Nurse-patient advocacy and the right to die. ledger of Psychosocial Nursing, 44, 36-42. Retrieved February 28, 2008, from the MEDLINE (through EBSCOhost) database. Darr, K. (2007). financial aid in dying part II. Assisted suicide in the fall in states. Nexus. Ethics, Law, and Management, 85, 31-36. Retrieved February 28, 2008, from the MEDLINE (through EBSCOhost) database. Death with dignity act. OREGON. gov. Retrieved February 15, 2008 from http//oregon. gov/DHS/ph/pas . DeSpelder, L. , Strickland, A. (2005). The last dance Encountering death and dying.New York McGraw-Hill. Dimond, B. (2006). Mental capacity requirements and a patients right to die. British Journal of Nursing, 15, 1130-1131. Retrieved February 28, 2008, fro m the MEDLINE (through EBSCOhost) database. Heintz, A. (2007). Quality of dying. Journal of Psychosomatic Obstetrics and Gynecology, 28, 1-2. Retrieved February 28, 2008, from the MEDLINE (through EBSCOhost) database. Oliver, D. (2006). A perspective on euthanasia. British Journal of Cancer, 95, 953-954. Retrieved February 28, 2008, from the MEDLINE (through EBSCOhost) database.Quill, T. , Battin, M. (2004). Physician assisted dying The case for palliative care and patient choice. Baltimore The John Hopkins University Press. Sanders, K. , Chaloner, C. (2007). Voluntary euthanasia Ethical concepts and definitions. fraud and Science Ethical Decision-Making, 21, 41-44. Retrieved February 28, 2008, from the MEDLINE (through EBSCOhost) database. Scherer, J. , Simon, R. (1999). Euthanasia and the right to die A comparative degree view. United States of America Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, Inc.