Many disagree with it but I personally believe it should be up to the patient and his/her doctor to decide what is best for their life. I would say it would be considered as ethical egoism. I don’t agree with physician-assisted-suicide being illegal. I understand that someone’s death affects many people but I do believe that at the end it should be the patient’s choice. If I were terminally ill, I would not want to suffer just to suffer.
Scope The proposed plan includes a detailed assessment of methods, personnel requirements, training (including costs), feasibility, and expected results. Proposed Plan This plan takes into account the needs and complaints of our patients, as well as the suggestions made by our phlebotomy and nursing staff members. Phases Excessive needlesticks can be reduced in three phases: (1) Training phlebotomy staff to draw from heparin locks safely and efficiently (2) Changing any protocol that might inadvertently cause more needlesticks to be preformed than intended (3) Shifting responsibility for blood draws out of heparin locks to phlebotomists from the nursing
Assisted-Suicide Physician assisted-suicide is when “the patient is provided the means for terminating his or her life, but the patient, not the doctor, ends the life in question” (Mosser, 2010). Suffering has always been a part of life and the discussion of the ending of suffering has existed since the beginning of medicine. It is an ethical issue that is highly debated. People argue whether physician assisted-suicide should be made legal or not. Physician assisted-suicide (PAS) is an issue that is very controversial.
In addition to identifying and following advanced directives, practitioners are also faced with the legal and ethical implications in end of life treatment and care. Palliative care and comfort care measures are another area that significantly impacts the health care provider also today. As we have made so many advances in medical care, we must also look at the quality of life that remains when we have prolonged someone’s life. As terminal conditions continue to progress, health care providers continue to have an ethical and legal obligation to promote the best possible care for the patient. Sometimes this means not aggressively treating a terminal illness and allowing the patient to choose to die with dignity and as comfortable as possible.
First, and most important of these, the patient or persons requesting the physician assisted suicide must have a condition that is incurable and associated with severe, unrelenting suffering and understand the prognosis. Second, the physician must be sure the request is not made because of inadequate pain control. Third, the patient must clearly and repeatedly request to die. Fourth the physician must be sure the patient’s judgment is not distorted. Fifth, the physician assisted suicide should only be carried out in a meaningful doctor patient relationship.
What it boils down to is this: Advocates of PAD simply believe that human beings should have the choice to make their own end-of-life decisions, especially in cases of the suffering and terminally ill. Of course, all of the arguments against PAD have been dissected and analyzed and, in turn, the pro-PAD gang offers their thoughts on those matters. Therefore, I will organize this in a way that lists the arguments against physician aid-in-dying, and then discuss what the proponents of PAD feel is legitimate, rational debate of those respective
Is Assisted Suicide Ethically Justified? Chriss N. Thomas Philosophy of Ethics Dr. John Schmitz February 8, 2012 The choice a terminally ill patient makes should be available to them in the event they no longer want to suffer. According to Dame Jill Macleod Clark, who sits on the Council of Deans of Health, states “those who have cared for terminally ill patients, friends or family know their greatest fears and anxieties are about intractable sufferings, and their desire for a dignified and peaceful death” (2011). When patients who are terminally ill want to hear options the argument has been made that all options are not available because assisted suicide comes with scrutiny and consequences. On the other hand opponents of assisted suicide do not believe this is the only way to secure a good health alternative.
The term terminally ill is usually used for very progressive diseases such as cancer, or serious heart diseases rather than a trauma. Death should be in the hand of the beholder; therefore every state in the United States should consider an Act much like that of Oregon’s. “The Oregon Death with Dignity Act (ODDA) allows a patient to request a lethal dose of medication from a physician for the purposes of self-administration” (Ganzini, et al. 445). With this way the patient is the one choosing to end their own life sooner than
Assisted Suicide Is Not Murder Assisted suicide is a very touchy issue but should be allowed for all terminally ill patients. Any person who has been diagnosed terminal should be allowed to end their pain and suffering. The term assisted suicide has several different interpretations. The most widely used and accepted is the intentional hastening of death by a terminally ill patient with assistance from a doctor, relative, or another person. Some people think that the definition should include the words, in order to relieve extreme pain and suffering Most people just want to live and die with dignity.
The dose of medication given to the patient must be lethal enough so that he/she does not wake up to the nightmare of realizing that they did not die. Also, more research has to be done of terminal illness. This must be done to avoid giving people a false prognosis. If both these things are done, this country could be one step closer to the legalization of doctor assisted death. In America, land of the free, doctor assisted death should be made legal so that the terminally ill can choose when and how they die.