PHYSICIAN ASSISTED SUICIDE (PAS).   Term Paper ID:29375 Click to get this paper

Essay Subject: Examines the legal, medical and ethical issues of PAS.... More...

8 Pages / 1800 Words 11 sources, 11 Citations, APA Format $32.00 Return to List of Papers

Paper Abstract: Examines the legal, medical and ethical issues of PAS. Defines key terms and legal status of PAS. Arguments for and against PAS including patient's right to self-determination. Argues that PAS should not be legalized based on logical and scientific research data. Paper Introduction: SHOULD PHYSICIAN ASSISTED SUICIDE BE LEGAL: A POSITION PAPER Introduction The purpose of this paper is to explore the legal, medical, and ethical issues surrounding physician-assisted suicide (PAS). Based on a comprehensive exploration of all of these issues, an argument is made for the non-legalization of PAS. The paper begins with a brief definition of key terms and a delineation of the legal status of PAS. This is followed by a description of the major arguments that have been put forth in the literature for legalizing PAS. An analysis of these arguments is then presented using both logical and scientific/research data; the analysis is used to argue against PAS. The last section of the paper formulates conclusions based on the analysis and reviewed material. D Text of the Paper: The entire text of the paper is shown below. However, the text is somewhat scrambled. We want to give you as much information as we possibly can about our papers and essays, but we cannot give them away for free. In the text below you will find that while disordered, many of the phrases are essentially intact. From this text you will be able to get a solid sense of the writing style, the concepts addressed, and the sources used in the research paper. Andthere is support in the literature for this claim. The foregoing can be related to the second argument which states thatcompetent people should have the right to choose. Still another argument in favor of PAS is that the costs of keepingpeople alive are very high. Will guidebook assure death with dignity?Psychiatric Times, 15. (2 1). Arguments in Favor of PAS It is an unfortunate truth of life that what can or cannot beaccomplished legally is sometimes not what should be done ethically. Archives of Internal Medicine, 126, 146-151 Grinfeld, M. People do a lot of things insecret; should society therefore validate and allow all said actions andbehaviors to be legal? In addition to intense suffering, terminally ill patients also havemany psychoemotional burdens. (1999). Non-terminally ill hospitalized patient attitudes: Depressed and non-depressed.General Hospital Psychiatry, 23(6), 326-332. The supreme court addressesphysician-assisted suicide. (1998). Justice Department who stated it would authorizefederal drug-enforcement agents to punish doctors who prescribe drugs tohelp terminally ill patients die. Archives of Family Medicine, 8, 2 -2 5. Making thefinal choice: Should physician-assisted suicide be legalized? L. Brandon, K. S. Document available: http://www.banned-books.com/ truth-seeker/1994archive/121_5/ts215m.html SHOULD PHYSICIAN ASSISTED SUICIDE BE LEGAL: A POSITION PAPER Introduction The purpose of this paper is to explore the legal, medical, andethical issues surrounding physician-assisted suicide (PAS). K. Thus, it is arguedthat legalization of PAS would promote open discussion. (2 1). Further, if it is a waste ofmedical resources to maintain the life of the terminally ill, why stop withthose who wish to die? J. It is noted that the line between thetwo actions can be subtle and difficult to distinguish in at least somesituations. The doctoressentially decides if a patient lives or dies, and doctors can makemistakes. The lawwas challenged by the U.S. An analysis of these arguments is thenpresented using both logical and scientific/research data; the analysis isused to argue against PAS. Thisapproach only shows that the "Pros" have logical holes; it does not supportthe rejection of PAS on face grounds. There arearguments on both sides. Mishara, B. To maintain life-support for people who have nochance of recovery and who do not even want it is an unnecessary waste ofmedical resources. A., Wallenstein, S., Quill, T., Morrison,R. International Association for Hospice and Palliative Care. Further, justice itselfrequires that we "treat like cases alike." Competent, terminally illpatients are allowed to hasten death by treatment refusal. Journal of American Geriatrics,49(2), 153-161. The remaining two arguments in favor of PAS involve the fact thatmany are already doing it and that it is inherently a waste of medicalresources to maintain life support for the terminally ill. &Schwartz, H..I. over practice. The paper begins with a brief definition ofkey terms and a delineation of the legal status of PAS. Still, some courts have decided that certain patients are competentin their decisions to end their lives by withdrawing from varioustreatments. What does, however, contribute to theargument against PAS is that there exists a number of additional concernsthat can be brought to bear against physician-assisted suicide. & Rogers, J.(2 1) Ethical dilemmas in participatory action research: A case study fromthe disabled community. & Bernard, L. A completeprohibition on PAS excessively limits their personal liberty in addition tosquandering medial resources. Thus, the only compassionate response is torelive them of the pain and of these psychological burdens with PAS if sorequested by them. References Alpers, A. Blank, K., Robison, J., Doherty, E., Prigerson, H., Duffy, J. In this regard,the first argument that can be considered is the notion that the terminallyill are in horrible pain with many psychoemotional burdens and it is theonly truly compassionate response to allow them to choose death if theywish. Indeed, in a study conducted by Meier, Emmons, Wallenstein,Quill, Morrison and Cassel (1996), researchers found one half of thephysicians responding were not confident they could predict that a patienthad less than six months to live. Indeed, their requestfor PAS could be a cry for help that would be ignored by simply grantingtheir wish to die. Therefore, why shouldn't terminally ill patients be allowedsimilar recourse? If attitudes toward PASshift depending upon patients' fear and depression level, are they indeedmaking a competent decision based on reason and rationality, or are theyinstead making a decision rooted in profound fear and/or depression? For example, morphine drips ostensibly usedfor pain relief may be a covert form of assisted death or euthanasia.Newman (2 2) also notes that related to this argument is the additionalargument that the illegality of PAS prevents an open discussion of thetopic, in which patients and physicians could engage. (2 2). & Schwartz, H.I. Truth Seeker,121(5). Moreover, professionals often called upon to judge competencyfrequently disagree (Grinfeld, 1998). The last section of the paper formulatesconclusions based on the analysis and reviewed material. A second argument in favor of PAS is that all people have the rightof self-determination when it comes to treatment or the decision to die.Decisions about time and circumstances and death are very personal. Indeed, the Association points out that in most cases, the very reasonthat terminally ill patients are in so much pain is improper and inadequatepalliative medication and care. Inaddition to the research showing the instability of attitudes in favor ofPAS associated with anxiety and depression, there are, at the moment,really are no psychometrically validated measures to assess the competencyof a patient. As to legal status, Alpers and Bernard (1999) report that euthanasiais illegal in the United States while physician-assisted suicide is illegalby statute or common law in all states but Oregon which approved a ballotinitiative to legalize PAS in 1994 and then reaffirmed the vote in 1997.There have been several other attempts to legalize PAS (often defining itsynonymously with euthanasia) in some other states including California,Michigan, Maine, and Washington; however, all of these have failed.Further, at least 25 other states have had their legislatures consider PAS,but none of these has voted to legalize it and over a dozen states haveadopted laws to ban the practice. & Cassel C. Indeed, several studieshave shown that when people are depressed (both the terminally ill and thenon-terminally ill) there is a strong desire to end their psychologicalpain as well as strong belief in PAS as a strategy for dealing with aterminal illness; however, once the depression and anxiety is alleviated,these attitudes change and PAS is often rejected (see: Blank, Robison,Prigerson, & Schwartz, 2 2; Blank, Robison, Doherty, Prigerson, Duffy &Schwartz, 2 1; Mishara, 1999). As noted by Minkler, Fadem, Perry, Blum, Moore and Rogers (2 1), oneof the strongest concerns among the disabled is that acceptance of PASsends the message to society that are some lives not worth living,especially the elderly, the disabled, and the dependent. If itis the latter, then the competency argument fails. The first question that can be asked with respect to the foregoingargument is whether the intense pain suffered by the terminal ill is anecessary consequence of disease? One third were not certain they couldrecognize depression in a patient asking for a lethal dose of medication.Yet, it will be these doctors who will decide to assist in a patient'sdeath if they can recognize depression and predict patient death within sixmonths. The Chicago Tribune InternetEdition.. Justice requires that we should allow assisted death forthese patients. Conclusions Based on the analysis of the existing literature on PAS, it isconcluded that both research and logical argument dictates the completeprohibition of Physician-Assisted Suicide. It is thecontention here that there are certain scientific as well as ethicalrealities which these arguments are ignoring and doing so because saidrealities negate much of each argument's persuasive punch. According to Newman (2 2), there are severalprimary arguments in support of PAS. A national survey of physician-assistedsuicide and euthanasia in the United States. And finally, legalizing an actionto promote discussion of said action is silly on the face of it.Discussion, by its very nature, need not require law-making in a freecountry. It gives the power to the doctor. As for psycho-emotional burdens, the Association notes that in theiryears of care for the terminally ill, once people are medicated andexperience the fact that the pain can indeed be controlled, their fear ofit seriously decreases and with it their desire to take their lives. (1999). (2 2).Statements on euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide. This is followed bya description of the major arguments that have been put forth in theliterature for legalizing PAS. Life-sustaining treatment and assisted deathchoices in depressed older patients. These argumentsare, simply on logical grounds, very weak. 39(1), 1-7 . Analysis of the Validity of Arguments in Favor of PAS Just how valid are the foregoing arguments supporting PAS? (March 23, 2 2). E., Emmons , C. A. For somepatients, treatment refusal will not suffice to hasten death; their onlyoption is suicide. Acompetent person should have right to choose death. Document Available: www.chicagotribune.com Drickamer, M.A., Lee, M. Blank, K., Robison, J., Prigerson, H. The first is that many of theterminally ill are in intense pain and to prolong their suffering is not totreat them with dignity; indeed, it is to treat them in a very inhumaneway. Related to this notion, is theidea that PAS could recreate a "duty to die." Given escalating health carecosts and a population of older and elderly people that will grow at a fastpace with the baby boomer generation, the "right to die," once sociallyacceptable, could become "the duty to die" in order to save neededresources. PAS, on the other hand, is said to involve aphysician supplying the patient with whatever assistance he or she needs inorder to terminate his/her own life. The authors also note that in 1997, theU.S. Further, a legal decision on competency is not a scientific one. Moreover, the argument is made that people are already doing it tosome extent , but in secret. Thequestion is: Is physician-assisted suicide ethical or even moral? According to the InternationalAssociation for Hospice and Palliative Care (2 ), the association'sresearch and general experience (which is substantial beyond measure) withthe terminally ill has shown time and time again that proper and adequatemedication can relieve the intense pain so often felt by the terminallyill. Judge ponders suicide law: Oregonclashes in courtroom with U.S. As tothe most current legal situation, The Chicago Tribune (see: Brandon, March23, 2 2) reports that a federal judge will issue a ruling in mid-Aprilregarding the legality of Oregon's physician-assisted suicide law. Newman, E. Obviously, not. The foregoing brings up still another point. (1996). Documentavailable: www.hospicecare.com Meier D. New England Journal ofMedicine, 1 399(11), 775-776. Minkler, M., Fadem, P., Perry, M., Blum, K., Moore, L. Is it not still a waste for those who wish toremain on earth until their dying breath? Omega. Given the foregoing, it seems reasonable tostate that the compassionate response may not be granting the patient'swish to die but rather alleviating his or her pain, fear and depression atwhich point this desire will no longer be present. Document available: www.mhsource.com. Primarily because the two situations really are NOT thesame. Health Education Behavior, 29(1), 14-29. However, the argument against PAS is not effective if all it all itdoes is poke holes in some of the major reasoning supporting PAS. Based on acomprehensive exploration of all of these issues, an argument is made forthe non-legalization of PAS. Practical issues inphysician-assisted suicide. There is indeed alikelihood that doctors practicing legalized PAS are communicatinghopelessness to millions, not compassion. In the case of patients withdrawing from treatment, no doctors ornurses are assisting them to die by providing them with drugs or othermeans; rather, these doctors and nurses are merely refraining from actioninstead of taking direct actions to ensure death. Definitions of Key Terms and Legal Status of Physician Assisted Suicide In their article on physician-assisted suicide, Drickamer, Lee andGanzini (1997) report that PAS is not necessarily the same as euthanasia.In both cases, the patient asks to die; however, a patient who is"euthanisized" is put to death by the hands of another, commonly thephysician or a family member. Assisted suicide doesnot give the patient autonomy. & Ganzini, L. Supreme Court ruled that there is no federal constitutional right toPAS; but the decision did not address individual state constitutions whichcould be interpreted by other courts to include a state right to PAS. This argument also makes the point that while societyhas a strong interest in preserving life, that interest lessens when peopleare terminally ill and have a strong desire to end their lives. (1997). Synthesis of research and evidence on factorsaffecting the desire of terminally ill or seriously chronically ill personsto hasten death. If this paper is not what you are looking for, you can search again: Search for: or Click here to request an essay written just for you.