Skip Nav

Outline for Presentation of Physician Assisted Suicide

We recommend

❶They hold that it is against the Hippocratic Oath for doctors to participate in active euthanasia.

Why I believe in Voluntary Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide

What happened?
Bad gateway
Downloading prezi...

I support PAS and think it is the humane thing. I believe anyone who is terminally ill should have the to right to choose how they die. My mother-in-law had herself put in a coma when she was suffering from terminal cancer. Please don't use "I" when supporting my ideas, please support ideas with research. I will try to e-mail you my first paper. I know it is not very good, but it will give you some idea of what my first paper was about. Also it will give you my internet sources.

I hope I haven't forgotten anything Thank so much. The main thing is paper should be worded with citations only as a supporting point. Research Paper Essay Instructions: Essay must be between and words. Write the word count for each essay at the top of your paper. In fairness to other students, papers that are either over or under the word count will be penalized.

You may not use quotations. You may paraphrase the text in your own words, and you must cite essays individually in a bibliography. You do not need to cite lecture notes. In fairness to other students papers that do not include a complete and properly formatted bibliography will be penalized. You may only use your text and class notes while researching and writing your essay. You may not use any other sources — including internet websites. You may not collaborate with any other students in any way.

Double-space your essay and include page numbers. At the tope of each essay include your name, the word count. In favor of the moral permissibility of active physician assisted suicide. Write an argumentative essay in which you evaluate either James Rachels or Dan Brocks argument in favor of the moral permissibility of active physician assisted suicide.

Your paper should be structured as follows. This section should be clearly organized into argumentative steps and should carefully explain the rationale offered by the author to support each claim. This section should only raise one objection. My response is this: It just does not fit. There are millions of atheists and agnostics, as well as people of various religions, degrees of spiritual beliefs, and they all have rights to their choices in abortion and euthanasia, too.

Many Christians who believe in euthanasia justify it by reasoning that the God whom they worship is loving and tolerant and would not wish to see them in agony. They do not see their God as being so vengeful as refusing them the Kingdom of Heaven if they accelerated the end of their life to avoid prolonged, unbearable suffering. Another consideration must be that, by checking out before the Grim Reaper routinely calls, is one depriving oneself of a valuable period of quality life?

Is that last period of love and companionship with family and friends worth hanging on for? Our critics heavily use the argument that this is the case. In my twenty years in this movement, and being aware of many hundreds of self-deliverances, I can attest that even the most determined supporters of euthanasia hang on until the last minute -- sometimes too long, and lose control.

The wiser ones gather with their families and friends to say good-byes; there are important reunions and often farewell parties. There is closure of wounds and familial gaps just the same as if the person was dying naturally - perhaps more so since the exact timing of the death is known.

Euthanasia supporters enjoy life and love living, and their respect for the sanctity of life is as strong as anybody's: They are willing, if their dying is distressing to them, to forego a few weeks or a few days at the very end and expire at a time of their choice.

Moreover, they are not the types to worry what the neighbors will think. There is another rightist argument that the acceptance of euthanasia practices will quickly destroy the traditional bond of trust between doctor and patient; that the patient will never know if the doctor is going to kill them or not; that commercialized medical practices will jump at the chance to get rid of long-term patients who are short of insurance funding.

Those arguments have been answered by the 20 years euthanasia has been practiced in the Netherlands, and by the nearly three years physician-assisted suicide has been available in Oregon. No evidence of a breakdown in relationships has emerged. Those doctors who are ethically opposed to hastening the end of life just don't do it. The laws in the Netherlands, Oregon, and the ones which have failed to pass, all give medical professionals the right to refuse to be involved -- a conscience clause.

This exemption will always be so as far as I am concerned. In fact, many patients hold their medical advisors in higher regard if they know that he or she will go to great lengths to keep them from terminal suffering, even to the extent of providing, if necessary, a gracious final exit.

What people often do not realize is that, for many, just knowing how to kill themselves is itself of great comfort. It gives them the assurance to fight harder and therefore often extends lives just a bit longer. Many people have remarked to me that my book, 'Final Exit' is the best insurance policy they've ever taken out. Once such people know how to make a certain and dignified deliverance, with loved ones supporting them, they will often renegotiate the timing of their death. For example, a man in his 90s called to tell me his health was so bad he was ready to terminate his life.

I advised him to read 'Final Exit,' which he did and he called me back. He had managed to get hold of lethal drugs from a friendly doctor and so everything was in position. Now he had the knowledge, the drugs, and encouraged by the control and choice now in his grasp, he had negotiated new terms with himself concerning his fate. Surely, for those who want this way, this is commendable and is in fact an extension rather than a curtailment of life's span.

Thanks to the work in the last century of a forceful right-to-die movement, a hidden reality has emerged about terminal suffering, indicating that the time has come for change. What are needed now are laws permitting voluntary euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide surrounded with a bodyguard of rules -- but not so many that the patient in unable to jump through all the hoops.

With the inevitability of gradualness, as the idea takes hold amongst rising generations, reform will undoubtedly come. We who believe must ceaselessly work for it. The above essay may be reproduced for scholarly purposes without permission being sought, provided source acknowledgement is given. Reproduction in any journal or book must have the author's permission. Good Life, Good Death.

Books by Derek Humphry. Google News assisted suicide. Yahoo News assisted suicide. Right to Die Organizations. Oregon Assisted Suicide Law. Assisted-Dying Blog by Derek Humphry. An essay by Derek Humphry The movement for choice in dying is dedicated to the view that there are at least two forms of suicide. Word origins and euphemisms The word 'euthanasia' comes from the Greek -- Eu, "good", and Thanatos, "death". Suicide, self-deliverance, auto-euthanasia, aid-in-dying, assisted suicide, physician-assisted suicide, physician-assisted dying -- call it what you like -- can be justified by the average supporter of the right to die movement for the following reasons: Advanced terminal illness that is causing unbearable suffering - combined physical and psychic -- to the individual despite good medical care.

This is the most common reason to seek an early end. And as Oregon research has shown, being a burden to others is an additional factor. This human element has always been a part of medicine, reflecting how we speak of life in more than simply physical terms.

Framed in terms of putting down terribly sick animals, the answer is almost always yes. However, people balk at the suggestion as soon as it applies to human beings. It frequently associates with religion, ascribing sacredness to life, and also contends that intentionally killing someone constitutes murder regardless of the reasoning behind the action. When it comes to the right to die, I feel that the sanctity of life interpretation is too narrow minded.

We should also ask what the sanctity of life amounts to in reality. Consider the high profile case of Nancy Cruzan, a young woman who fell into a months long vegetative state following a car accident Jost. Her parents sought to remove her feeding tube since they could not bear seeing her remain comatose. While it is true that we need laws to clearly define eligibility for PAS and euthanasia, these laws are meant to prevent abuse, not enable it.

Furthermore, advocating such regulations does not automatically mean we believe certain kinds of people are lesser, nor do we jump to the conclusion that someone is suffering. Look at the esteemed physicist Stephen Hawking, for example.

He is confined to a wheelchair and forced to speak via computer due to the disease ALS, but his groundbreaking research, brilliant mind, and caring family provide a fruitful life that even some healthy folks lack. We would not recommend him to die, and at any rate, I believe patients should be the ultimate determinants of their own fates since we all hold varying thoughts on what comprises a good life. If a patient is mentally incompetent like Cruzan, a capable proxy should determine health decisions in their stead.

One last moral concern about PAS and euthanasia questions if legalization would make suicide socially acceptable. This fear is not entirely groundless, but there are important distinctions between those who seek death based on medical conditions and the depressed. First, it is possible to defeat depression. There exists a vast network of suicide prevention resources that has saved many lives. PAS and euthanasia, however, serve people who face inevitable death or permanent, crippling disabilities; their destinies are tragically sealed.

By Derek Humphry

Main Topics

Privacy Policy

Physician-Assisted Suicide Machele Carter Informal Logic PHI Instructor Jason Lum May 19, The argument over physician-assisted suicide (PAS) and the right-to-die movement has plagued American society, for decades.

Privacy FAQs

Jul 28,  · Physician assisted suicide should be a legal option for terminally ill patients throughout the United States. This is a humane way for the terminally ill to end their lives with dignity and without the shame and suffering.

About Our Ads

SAMPLE ARGUMENTATION ESSAY Research Question: Should assisted suicide be legal? Assisted Suicide: Rights and Responsibilities A woman suffering from cancer became the first person known to die under the law on physician-assisted suicide in the state of Oregon when she took a . Free Argumentative Essays: Euthanasia is Inhuman - Euthanasia is Inhuman A subject that has been disputed more ever since medical technology has dramatically improved is Euthanasia. Euthanasia is assisted suicide, or it could be ending a patience's suffering by letting him die.

Cookie Info

Abstract Reported cases of suicide due to terminal illness have been on the rise. Today, there are several terminal diseases that plague our community. Key among these terminal diseases includes cancer and diabetes. Adult patients have always considered the option of terminating their lives so as to avert the suffering that comes with the disease. - Physician assisted suicide Physician assisted suicide, a suicide made possible by a physician providing a patient with the means to kill themselves, and euthanasia, the kindness of taking individual life by the physician, is an extremely debatable topic.