Pas vs Euthanasia

Every human being has the power to make determinations throughout the course of his or her animateness. People make pickings every day, and it is the control that plurality tolerate everywhere their possess lives that all in allows them to do so. This top executive to wealthy soul pickaxes and be capable to make decisions should non cease to exist as a unhurried approaches the closing of life. People have the decently to believe strongly in personal autonomy and have the determination to control the finish up of their lives as wished (DeSpelder 238). Toward the end of life, people should still be kick the bucketn the fortune to make decisions, in indian lodge to allow them some piss of control in a life.The option for mendelevium aided felo-de-se allows for those, who are approaching death, to end their lives without losing any dignity. atomic number 101 support self-annihilation is when a medical student in hug drugtionally assists a person in committin g his or her own suicide by providing drugs for self administration at a giveful and competent request (Oliver 2006). With medical student aid felo-de-se, the atomic number 101 supplys the diligent with a prescription for a lethal dose of medication, and counseling on the doses and the methods the longanimous moldiness follow through with to finish up the act (Sanders 2007).The physician whitethorn be present while the longanimous self-administers the medication, although this is not legally required. Also, the physician, or any other person, ejectnot assist the forbearing in administering the medication (Darr 2007). doctor up aid felo-de-se should not be confused with mercy killing. In the practice of Physician aided Suicide, it is the persevering who makes the final administration of the lethal medication. As far as euthanasia is concerned, it is a deliberate march d 1 with the intention to hasten or cause the death of an individual (Sanders 2007).Physician back up Suicide is still legal in the convey of surgery, while Euthanasia is illegal across the United States. Even though Euthanasia is illegal, it was per create casually by a physician by the name of Dr. Jack Kevorkian. Dr. Kevorkian would typically fix an IV running saline, and allow the persevering to then initiate the flow of barbituates and potassium chloride which would result in death (Darr 2007). After having assisted 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 may see Dr. Kevorkians work as wrong and immoral, others support him and his symbol as the public debate on ethical and legal issues surrounding Physician Assisted Suicide (DeSpelder 238). thither are many different types or forms of Euthanasia. These types of Euthanasia are passive euthanasia, active euthanasia, active volunteer eu thanasia, and active involuntary euthanasia.Passive euthanasia is the add uprence of a natural death through the discontinuation of life support equipment or the cessation of life-sustaining medical 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 much(prenominal) a representation to cause the patients death, just now without the consent from the patient (Scherer 13).One may wish to have a go at it Euthanasia to end his or her life for many reasons. Many patients wish for control and influence over the manner and timing of his or her own death. He or she may alike wish to honour his or her dignity and wish to have relief of severe pang that may be caused by a terminal illness. Other thoughts that may affect the choice for Euthanasia involve wanting to block the potential for abuse from his or her doctor, family, wellness cautiousness insurance, and society (Scherer vii).On the other overturn, 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 achievements of pain medications on his or her body. The patient may also olfaction that the mystery of death is a threat to his or her sense of self, and wish for some branch of control over the matter. Also, patients may fear for the future as far as the quality of life is concerned. A negative past experience with death, and the fear of becoming a burden on amily and friends, washstand greatly influence a persons choice to seek Physician Assisted Suicide. As the end of life is approached, care can become much more involved, placing strain on those who are responsib le for caring for the dying (Quill 93). In caring for the terminally ill and those near death, certain medications may be placed 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 known as double effect (Oliver 2006).The doctrine of double effect states that a harmful effect of treatment, even if it results in death, is permissible 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 probably that respiratory distress may occur soon afterward, leading to death. This has become known as terminal sedation, yet the Supreme court of justice has ruled 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 profession hold strong views that oppose assisting death, but in many 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 show by the legal and professional acceptance of particular cases.Both the law and medical profession allow for the serious of a competent adult to refuse any type of treatment, including angiotensin converting enzyme which may save his or her life. Doctors are given the repair to withdraw or withhold any treatments that he or she sees as futile or not in the patients best interest this includes life deliverance and life prolonging treatments. As mentioned previously, Doctors are legally also given the right to use their discretion in administering high-dose opiates in the context of mitigative 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 only 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 someone 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 Washington all hope to follow in Oregons footsteps in legalizing this practice (Ball 2006). Since Physician Assisted Suicide is legal in the s tate of Oregon, it may be feared that too many people will take advantage of such a public-service corporation and that it has potential for abuse (Quill 6).This is not necessarily true. In Oregon, an average of 50 people take estimable advantage of Physician Assisted Suicide each year yet many more than this genuinely receive the lethal medications and engage 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 manoeuver where they feel as if they cannot live any longer, they do not have to.Some other facts about 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 married rather than married or widowed, had levels of education higher(prenominal) than general educatio n, and had any HIV and AIDS or malignant neoplasms (Darr 2007). Although Physician Assisted Suicide was make legal in Oregon, there have been many instances where the United States Supreme Court has attempted to give Physician Assisted Suicide a bad 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 withholding and withdrawing treatments against Physician Assisted Suicide. The Court concluded that the right to refuse treatment was based on the right to carry ones bodily 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, contrasted 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 prohibit Physician Assist ed Suicide, or allow it under some regulatory system. In bon ton to be eligible for Physician Assisted Suicide, there are certain criteria that need to be met. First, the patient must be at least eighteen years old and a legal occupant in the state of Oregon. The patient must be diagnosed with a terminal illness which is determined to provide the patient with less than six months to live.This terminal diagnosis must be confirmed again by a consulting physician. The patient must also be able to communicate his or her wellness care decisions. A patient is determined to be mentally incompetent in making such decisions, as stated by the Mental Capacity Act of 2005, if he or she is unable to understand selective information that is relevant to the situation or decision, is unable to retain this information being provided, cannot use or turn over information as part of the natural decision making process, and cannot communicate his or her decision in any manner (Dimond 2006).The reque st for Physician 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, some(prenominal) 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 psychiatric examination is done. In addition to these criteria, the physician must also provide information to the patient about hospice care and other comfort measures that may serve as alternatives to Physician Assisted Suicide (Ball 2006).It is important to explore 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 wellness care providers to examine, explore and address a patients fears for the end-of-life (Darr 2007). It is importa nt to hear the request and the feelings tooshie it, because this could also be a patients means for expressing a fear of being kept alive 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 deep lying psychological issue. It is also recommended that the physician and patient have formed a previous relationship so that there is a clear 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 then allow him or her to respond to the patients request with bo th concern and compassion. If both concern and compassion can be developed 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 quality 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 ex tend 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 cave in from God and no human being has the right to take that gift away (Heintz 2007).Fears or worries may arise with the legalization 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 execute 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 assi sting 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 constant 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 input 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 nobody else.It will always be said to people that it is your life, do with it as you will, but why should this musical 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. Life 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. Journal of Psychosocial Nursing, 44, 36-42. Retrieved February 28, 2008, from the MEDLINE (through EBSCOhost) database. Darr, K. (2007). Assistance in dying part II. Assisted suicide in the united 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 faculty requirements and a patients right to die. British Journal of Nursing, 15, 1130-1131. Retrieved February 28, 2008, from the MEDLINE (thro ugh EBSCOhost) database. Heintz, A. (2007). Quality of dying. Journal of Psychosomatic midwifery 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. Art 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 view. United States of America Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, Inc.