Eighteen states across the country are contemplating whether or not to make Physician assisted suicide (PAS) legal. PAS is legal in five states: Oregon, California, Vermont and Washington. Accepting physician-assisted suicide or a “right to suicide,” produces a wall between the patient and mental health treatments. PAS is when a licensed physician guides and aids a terminally ill patient, who which decides to kill himself by using prescribed drugs. Physicians are meant to care and have respect for the life of every human being. The intrinsic values of people and their life, such as health, friendship and wisdom are apart of humans. So, to act against any of these goods is also directly acting against the person. Human life is indistinguishable
…show more content…
Why can’t physicians be able to eliminate a patient 's suffering by helping them to die? Yet, we need to know the distinction between suffering, and the person who is suffering. It is a mistake to intentionally destroy an innocent person; their dignity, by removing their pain through suicide. The moral or ethical side of this argument does not resolve the legal issue. Supporters of physician-assisted suicide claim that people 's freedom of choice should be honored, which means PAS should be legal. Given that, our autonomy should be respected; the law and medical foundations each have restrictions to people’s rights. All laws limit our autonomy to some expanse. For example, the law states that, “You shall not steal,” which must be followed but it is a limitation of our desire to perform that action. Is there something about the public good that needs to be protected by misuse of a freedom, that that freedom can be …show more content…
Agreeing to the process of PAS, shows terminally ill patients their live is not worth living. PAS communicates to the vulnerable, that by poor example, other patients will choose death as a benefit, over life that has become miserable to them. Physicians should not give up completely on the patient if their is no possible cure. The patient should die naturally with emotional support, be provided with a sufficient amount of pain control and keep a well communicated relationship with their physician and family. Advocates of Physician-assisted suicide propose that mercy killing is required because patients with a terminal illness, undergo unmanageable suffering. They insist that the only way to eradicate pain is to kill the patient. Patients and their physicians assume that those with a condition will be in a better state of not existing than suffering through pain and depression. Instead of killing the patient who is enduring pain, the better alternative is to guarantee that their suffering is controlled. Once the patient’s illness is managed, they will become less despondent, more in control with their thoughts and will be open to alternative
Why can’t physicians be able to eliminate a patient 's suffering by helping them to die? Yet, we need to know the distinction between suffering, and the person who is suffering. It is a mistake to intentionally destroy an innocent person; their dignity, by removing their pain through suicide. The moral or ethical side of this argument does not resolve the legal issue. Supporters of physician-assisted suicide claim that people 's freedom of choice should be honored, which means PAS should be legal. Given that, our autonomy should be respected; the law and medical foundations each have restrictions to people’s rights. All laws limit our autonomy to some expanse. For example, the law states that, “You shall not steal,” which must be followed but it is a limitation of our desire to perform that action. Is there something about the public good that needs to be protected by misuse of a freedom, that that freedom can be …show more content…
Agreeing to the process of PAS, shows terminally ill patients their live is not worth living. PAS communicates to the vulnerable, that by poor example, other patients will choose death as a benefit, over life that has become miserable to them. Physicians should not give up completely on the patient if their is no possible cure. The patient should die naturally with emotional support, be provided with a sufficient amount of pain control and keep a well communicated relationship with their physician and family. Advocates of Physician-assisted suicide propose that mercy killing is required because patients with a terminal illness, undergo unmanageable suffering. They insist that the only way to eradicate pain is to kill the patient. Patients and their physicians assume that those with a condition will be in a better state of not existing than suffering through pain and depression. Instead of killing the patient who is enduring pain, the better alternative is to guarantee that their suffering is controlled. Once the patient’s illness is managed, they will become less despondent, more in control with their thoughts and will be open to alternative