Death is Definitely Not Justified With Physician-Assisted Suicide Essay

Doctors dedicate their blood, sweat and tears to get hold of the supreme goal of their profession to go on the health and well- macrocosm of their patient shares. Doctors positively tack together in with life processes in order to maintain and preserve the lives of m whatsoever community. However, when doctors negatively intervene with a natural process like oddment, problems can come on because they atomic number 18 caught in a dilemma of whether to forego life and bear end the excruciation or to preserve it and torment the patients suffering with last woozynesses.This is why, doctor-assisted self-annihilation is non just perceived solely as a medical problem because it besides involves legal, ethical, social, personal, and financial considerations. Physician-assisted suicide remained as integrity(a) of the most controversial types of mercy killing because it violates the Hippocratic Oath. Physician-assisted suicide liter every last(predicate)y mode that the physician renders the medication for suicide to a competent patient who is undefendable of carrying it out.It is not just incorruptly reprehensible for a physician, or tout ensemble told medical practitioner, to assist the patient to conduct this procedure because it negates their responsibility to preserve life, physician-assisted suicide withal de appreciates the life of the patient as their fate is put entirely in the hands of a gracious being. Indeed, there exists an unparalleled debate over physician-assisted suicide (also called mercy killing) because involves medical professionals, as well as the patients and their families.The arguments range from determining the dignity of the patients, the quality of their lives, their mental state, and sometimes their public utility company to society. For example, the patient who is in a vegetative state is considered dead by some but not by others, and this case presents substantial moral and ethical problems. The Oxford Dicti onary of English (2005) defines euthanasia as the painless cleanup position of a patient suffering from an incurable and painful disease or in an irreversible coma.However, euthanasia means much much than a painless death, or the means of procuring it, or the accomplish of inducing it. The definition specifies only the manner of death, and if this were all that was needed to achieve it a murderer, who is conductful to drug his victim to death, could claim that he or she did an act of euthanasia. We find this ridiculous because we take it for granted that euthanasia is death itself, not just the manner of death. How can someone administer a medical procedure to the one who dies in the end?The spate of new-fangled public and philosophical controversy has been over voluntary energetic euthanasia (VAE), especially physician-assisted suicide. Supporters of VAE argue that there ar cases in which relief from suffering supersedes all other consequences and that respect for autonomy obligates society to respect the decisions of those who select euthanasia. If competent patients put one across a legal and moral safe to food waste treatment that brings about their deaths, there is a similar practiced to muster in the help of physicians or others to help patients cause their deaths by an active means.Usually, supporters of VAE in the first place look to circumstances in which (1) a condition has become irresistibly burdensome for a patient, (2) pain management for the patient is inadequate, and (3) only a physician seems capable of bringing relief (Dworkin, Frey & Bok, 1998). A much bare case of physician-assisted suicide came into the headlines when it shocked people with the bizarre activities of Dr. Jack Kevorkian in early 1990s (or Dr Death as the media declare dubbed him) in the USA. Dr.Kevorkian, a retired pathologist, assisted over forty people to commit suicide in recent years in circumstances, which were somewhat beyond normal from uniform medi cal practice. These people travelled to Kevorkian from all over the USA to stress his assistance in suicide. Kevorkian assisted their death by ending their suffering. He even attached his patients at the back of a dilapidated Volkswagen van, where a suicide machine can be found. This machine automatically injects patients with deadly doses of drugs, as patients themselves activate it.Despite being prosecuted for assisted suicide on several occasions, Kevorkian escaped conviction and continued his personal campaign for repose of the virtue in his peculiar way. It was only when he moved from assistance in suicide to euthanasia that he was finally convicted. He enter himself administering a lethal injection, and the film helped secure his conviction for murder (Keown 2002, p. 31). Of course, his actions fire discussion of the thin line separating passive euthanasia, which is legal in this country, and active euthanasia.Opponents of Kevorkians actions state that he is practicing ph ysician-assisted suicide, which is illegal. Proponents of Kevorkians actions argue that the patients right to control his or her medical treatment is sufficient exculpation for assisted suicide. Unfortunately, most Americans seem to agree with physician-assisted suicide. A nationwide sight by the Gallup poll in 2004 showed that 69% of Americans believed that physicians should be allowed to help terminally ill patients in severe pain commit suicide.These results were consistent with those of Gallup survey over the past two years, where Americans make shown slightly higher levels of support for doctors ending patients lives by painless means than for assisting patients to commit suicide (Lyons, 2004). Allen et al. (2006) draw out about the reasons for these statistics. They said that one explanation could be the increase in education and awareness of advances in both medical technology and enquiry on various chronic diseases.As to a greater extent Americans are decorous more awa re of the devastating psychological establishs of disease on a persons well being they may be more willing to make informed decisions on end-of-life care. fortify with knowledge of how painful and grueling pains that patients suffer, Americans think that sometimes the vanquish option for a terminally ill patient is physician-assisted suicide or some other form of euthanasia. Strangely enough, a group of doctors also support physician-assisted suicide.Known as the Hemlock Society, these doctors advocate the legalization of euthanasia (Snyder, 2001). This organization believes that the final decision to terminate life ultimately is ones own, although it does not encourage suicide for emotional, traumatic, or financial reasons, or in the absence of terminal illness. Conversely, the National Hospice Organization supports a patients right to choose, but believes that hospice care is a better filling than euthanasia or assisted suicide (Snyder, 2001).Despite the salient points make by the supporters of physician-assisted suicide, we should not forget that this process essentially negates the purpose of a doctors profession. The Hippocratic Oath, which dates back in the 400 B. C. E. states that I will give no deadly medicine to anyone if asked, nor suggest any such counsel. Not only that it is in clear opponent to the oath of their profession, it is also morally and ethically reprehensible. According to Somerville (2006), there are two major reasons why people should not allow euthanasia to be legalized.First reason is purely relying on principle that it is not right for one human to intentionally kill another (with the censure of justified self-defense cases, or in the defense of others). Somerville (2006) stated that the stand by reason is utilitarian, as legalizing physician-assisted death has harmful effects and risks to people and society. In fact, the harms and risks far outweigh any benefits of physician-assisted suicide. While Mak, Elwyn & Finlay (2006 ) reasoned that most studies of euthanasia rent been quantitative, focusing primarily on attitudes of healthcare professionals, relatives, and the public. near people perceive pain as the major reason for requesting euthanasia, epoch other factors that convince people to choose it are impairment of functions, dependency, being a big burden, being isolated to people, depression, losing hope, and losing autonomy or control. This is why, Mak, Elwyn & Finlay (2006) conceit that legalizing euthanasia is a premature move when research evidence from the perspectives of those who disposition euthanasia is not yet proven to be necessary.The researchers suggested that there needs to be additional qualitative patient-based studies in order to broaden the physicians at a lower placestanding of patients. They deemed that there should be the inclusion of medical humanities, experiential learning, and reflective practice into medical education should help ensure doctors have better communic ation skills and attitudes. Thus, doctors and healthcare professionals should focus in examining ways to correct cure and care at all levels so that they can folderol out the side effects of poor end of life care.In this way, physician-assisted suicide would not be necessity anymore. In 1997, the U. S. domineering Court ruled that the Constitution does not guarantee Americans a right to physician-assisted suicide and returned the issue to the state legislatures for continued debate. In its decision, the Court primed(p) emphasis on the American tradition of condemning suicide and valuing human life. In its ruling, the Court made it clear that the states have a true interest in banning physician-assisted suicide, but it also left it receptive to them to legalize the practice.As a result, the practice has been legalized in Oregon. Although the law is sort of unequivocal in regard to the practice of active euthanasia, the court decisions have been quite ambiguous. This may be a p roper stance for the law in that its adamant negative position provides a deterrent to all considerations of the practice and forces deliberation of the merits on a case-by-case basis. But under what circumstances is euthanasia justifiable? Is it permissible to kill the terminally ill?How about those who are not terminally ill but have only lost their appetite for life? Even if society decides that citizens have a right not only to life, liberty, and property but also to death, what part do health care practitioners play in this right? Would the role of physician who conducts euthanasia have a chilling effect on the medical profession? What law cannot answer, ethics and morality could provide the answers of what needs to be done by health professionals when faced with a difficult dilemma, such as physician-assisted suicide.As medical practitioners, medical engrave of ethics should not just become theoretical concepts, because ethics are important references in the application of on es moral and value system to a career in health care. Ethics involves more than just common sense, which is an approach for making decisions that most people in society use. Ethics goes way beyond this It requires a detailed thinking approach that examines important considerations such as fairness for all consumers, the impact of the decision on society, and the future implications of the decision.In the end, as doctors, the exchange issue remains caring for the dignity of the patient, which involves respecting the patients wishes, protect the integrity of the profession, and sparing the life of a person under all conditions which are generally understood to be extremely burdensome. Thus, all forms of physician-assisted suicide are ethically and morally reprehensible because it promotes intentional killing. This principle does not require the preservation of life at all costs, which is essentially the role of all physicians.