for carol only

Physician-Assisted Suicide

I. Physician-Assisted Suicide

Should Physician-Assisted Suicide (PAS) be legalized?

II. Introduction

Physician-assisted suicide/euthanasia is a very controversial debate in the modern society, and it started in the 5th century. Physician-assisted suicide is a situation when an individual makes the decision to end life because of the terminal illness with a prescription for one dose of lethal medication. Currently, physician-assisted suicide is more widespread known as the Death-With-Dignity Act. Recent stories of patients that have tried to terminate their lives through lethal medication have made numerous headlines regarding the subject all through several informational sources. At the present, the states of Oregon, Washington, and Vermont are the only states in the US, which has adopted the Death-With-Dignity Act (Hedlund, 2005). The majority of people does not think about their death or they way they will die as well as when they would wish to die, if they were terminally ill. From the ancient times, several persons have developed the concept of a merciful and acceptable death. From the Romans to Greek times until the modern society, physician-assisted suicide has been long debated. Nonetheless, the person’s choice in dying did not become a United States (US) legal and social matter until recently. Dr. Jack Kevorkian is possibly the most powerful advocate of assisted suicide after he aired a 6o-minute videotape, where he was injecting Thomas Youk. The physician-assisted suicide is surrounded by the aspects regarding if it should be legalized or not (Gill, 2009).

III. Position Statement

If physician-assisted suicide were legalized, then the terminally ill persons would be relieved from having to endure unnecessary pain and suffering.

IV. Supporting Reason

The support of legalization of physician-assisted suicide is that, similar to abortion; it is a choice matter among the terminally ill persons. PAS is the decisive civil right, and to deny mentally competent, terminally ill individuals that want to terminate their pain or suffering of a peaceful assistance in dying is to essentially disrepute their right to individual independence. Furthermore, legalizing PAS is vital to insure that no person dies in painful anguish, as well as unrelenting suffering (Gorsuch, 2009). Doctors commonly take part in PAS surreptitiously and promote legalization as a means to protect susceptible patients from abuses inbuilt in the present unregulated practice. Through recognizing the concerns over possible abuses, it is apparent that protective guidelines would be implemented that would safeguard the vulnerable from wrongful death while still permitting the terminally ill that are eligible for PAS to get a preferred, serene death with dignity. Additionally, proponents of legalization of PAS argue that those that oppose it argue based on religion, and thus the laws forbidding the practice are unconstitutional since they breach the separation of powers between the state and the church (Bonin, 2012).

V. Opposing Reason

Legalization of PAS will lead the society down to a treacherous path, which will eventually allow legalized killing of the elderly, physically challenged, as well as persons that are depressed, and mentally-ill incompetent. This is because the protective guidelines will not safeguard the interest of these persons. Furthermore, the economics of contemporary medicine will encourage PAS as a form of health care cost-cutting, acknowledging that the drugs used in PAS are much cheaper than the cost of offering palliative care to terminally ill (Bonin, 2012).

References