Physician-Assisted Suicide: Ethical Topic in Medicine - The Diigo Meta page

• 02 Oct 12
  

  Cassie Mica

  p. a. s.

• 20 Jan 12
  

  Latoya williams
• 04 Apr 11
  

  Eric Maden

  Ashford University(Previous) Week 3 Assignment (Theorys) Topic of

• 29 Sep 10
  

  Aaryn Gouger

  research

• 17 May 10
  

  Danika Kerin
  • No. Physician-assisted suicide refers to the physician providing the means for  death, most often with a prescription. The patient, not the physician, will  ultimately administer the lethal medication. Euthanasia generally means that the  physician would act directly, for instance by giving a lethal injection, to end  the patient's life. Some other practices that should be distinguished from PAS  are:
  •  
    • Terminal sedation: This refers to the practice of sedating  a terminally ill competent patient to the point of unconsciousness, then  allowing the patient to die of her disease, starvation, or dehydration.  
    • Withholding/withdrawing life-sustaining  treatments: When a competent patient makes an informed decision to  refuse life-sustaining treatment, there is virtual unanimity in state law and in  the medical profession that this wish should be respected.  
    • Pain medication that may hasten death: Often a terminally  ill, suffering patient may require dosages of pain medication that impair  respiration or have other effects that may hasten death. It is generally held by  most professional societies, and supported in court decisions, that this is  justifiable so long as the primary intent is to relieve suffering.
• 13 May 10
  

  kristin martinak
  • • Respect for autonomy: Decisions about time and circumstances death are very personal. Competent person should have right to choose death. 
    • Justice: Justice requires that we "treat like cases alike." Competent, terminally ill patients are allowed to hasten death by treatment refusal. For some patients, treatment refusal will not suffice to hasten death; only option is suicide. Justice requires that we should allow assisted death for these patients. 
    • Compassion: Suffering means more than pain; there are other physical and psychological burdens. It is not always possible to relieve suffering. Thus PAS may be a compassionate response to unbearable suffering. 
    • Individual liberty vs. state interest: Though society has strong interest in preserving life, that interest lessens when person is terminally ill and has strong desire to end life. A complete prohibition on assisted death excessively limits personal liberty. Therefore PAS should be allowed in certain cases. 
    • Openness of discussion: Some would argue that assisted death already occurs, albeit in secret. For example, morphine drips ostensibly used for pain relief may be a covert form of assisted death or euthanasia. That PAS is illegal prevents open discussion, in which patients and physicians could engage. Legalization of PAS would promote open discussion.
  • ld have right to choose death.

  • What are the arguments against PAS?

      Those that argue that PAS should remain illegal often offer arguments such as these: 
     
    1. Sanctity of life: This argument points out strong religious and secular traditions against taking human life. It is argued that assisted suicide is morally wrong because it contradicts these beliefs. 
    2. Passive vs. Active distinction: The argument here holds that there is an important difference between passively "letting die" and actively "killing." It is argued that treatment refusal or withholding treatment equates to letting die (passive) and is justifiable, whereas PAS equates to killing (active) and is not justifiable. 
    3. Potential for abuse: Here the argument is that certain groups of people, lacking access to care and support, may be pushed into assisted death. Furthermore, assisted death may become a cost-containment strategy. Burdened family members and health care providers may encourage option of assisted death. To protect against these abuses, it is argued, PAS should remain illegal. 
    4. Professional integrity: Here opponents point to the historical ethical traditions of medicine, strongly opposed to taking life. For instance, the Hippocratic oath states, "I will not administer poison to anyone where asked," and "Be of benefit, or at least do no harm." Furthermore, major professional groups (AMA, AGS) oppose assisted death. The overall concern is that linking PAS to the practice of medicine could harm the public's image of the profession. 
    5. Fallibility of the profession: The concern raised here is that physicians will make mistakes. For instance there may be uncertainty in diagnosis and prognosis. There may be errors in diagnosis and treatment of depression, or inadequate treatment of pain. Thus the State has an obligation to protect lives from these inevitable mistakes. 

  • What are the arguments against PAS?

      Those that argue that PAS should remain illegal often offer arguments such as these: 
     
    1. Sanctity of life: This argument points out strong religious and secular traditions against taking human life. It is argued that assisted suicide is morally wrong because it contradicts these beliefs. 
    2. Passive vs. Active distinction: The argument here holds that there is an important difference between passively "letting die" and actively "killing." It is argued that treatment refusal or withholding treatment equates to letting die (passive) and is justifiable, whereas PAS equates to killing (active) and is not justifiable. 
    3. Potential for abuse: Here the argument is that certain groups of people, lacking access to care and support, may be pushed into assisted death. Furthermore, assisted death may become a cost-containment strategy. Burdened family members and health care providers may encourage option of assisted death. To protect against these abuses, it is argued, PAS should remain illegal. 
    4. Professional integrity: Here opponents point to the historical ethical traditions of medicine, strongly opposed to taking life. For instance, the Hippocratic oath states, "I will not administer poison to anyone where asked," and "Be of benefit, or at least do no harm." Furthermore, major professional groups (AMA, AGS) oppose assisted death. The overall concern is that linking PAS to the practice of medicine could harm the public's image of the profession. 
    5. Fallibility of the profession: The concern raised here is that physicians will make mistakes. For instance there may be uncertainty in diagnosis and prognosis. There may be errors in diagnosis and treatment of depression, or inadequate treatment of pain. Thus the State has an obligation to protect lives from these inevitable mistakes. 

  • What are the arguments against PAS?

      Those that argue that PAS should remain illegal often offer arguments such as these: 
     
    1. Sanctity of life: This argument points out strong religious and secular traditions against taking human life. It is argued that assisted suicide is morally wrong because it contradicts these beliefs. 
    2. Passive vs. Active distinction: The argument here holds that there is an important difference between passively "letting die" and actively "killing." It is argued that treatment refusal or withholding treatment equates to letting die (passive) and is justifiable, whereas PAS equates to killing (active) and is not justifiable. 
    3. Potential for abuse: Here the argument is that certain groups of people, lacking access to care and support, may be pushed into assisted death. Furthermore, assisted death may become a cost-containment strategy. Burdened family members and health care providers may encourage option of assisted death. To protect against these abuses, it is argued, PAS should remain illegal. 
    4. Professional integrity: Here opponents point to the historical ethical traditions of medicine, strongly opposed to taking life. For instance, the Hippocratic oath states, "I will not administer poison to anyone where asked," and "Be of benefit, or at least do no harm." Furthermore, major professional groups (AMA, AGS) oppose assisted death. The overall concern is that linking PAS to the practice of medicine could harm the public's image of the profession. 
    5. Fallibility of the profession: The concern raised here is that physicians will make mistakes. For instance there may be uncertainty in diagnosis and prognosis. There may be errors in diagnosis and treatment of depression, or inadequate treatment of pain. Thus the State has an obligation to protect lives from these inevitable mistakes. 

  • What are the arguments against PAS?

      Those that argue that PAS should remain illegal often offer arguments such as these: 
     
    1. Sanctity of life: This argument points out strong religious and secular traditions against taking human life. It is argued that assisted suicide is morally wrong because it contradicts these beliefs. 
    2. Passive vs. Active distinction: The argument here holds that there is an important difference between passively "letting die" and actively "killing." It is argued that treatment refusal or withholding treatment equates to letting die (passive) and is justifiable, whereas PAS equates to killing (active) and is not justifiable. 
    3. Potential for abuse: Here the argument is that certain groups of people, lacking access to care and support, may be pushed into assisted death. Furthermore, assisted death may become a cost-containment strategy. Burdened family members and health care providers may encourage option of assisted death. To protect against these abuses, it is argued, PAS should remain illegal. 
    4. Professional integrity: Here opponents point to the historical ethical traditions of medicine, strongly opposed to taking life. For instance, the Hippocratic oath states, "I will not administer poison to anyone where asked," and "Be of benefit, or at least do no harm." Furthermore, major professional groups (AMA, AGS) oppose assisted death. The overall concern is that linking PAS to the practice of medicine could harm the public's image of the profession. 
    5. Fallibility of the profession: The concern raised here is that physicians will make mistakes. For instance there may be uncertainty in diagnosis and prognosis. There may be errors in diagnosis and treatment of depression, or inadequate treatment of pain. Thus the State has an obligation to protect lives from these inevitable mistakes. 

  • What are the arguments against PAS?

      Those that argue that PAS should remain illegal often offer arguments such as these: 
     
    1. Sanctity of life: This argument points out strong religious and secular traditions against taking human life. It is argued that assisted suicide is morally wrong because it contradicts these beliefs. 
    2. Passive vs. Active distinction: The argument here holds that there is an important difference between passively "letting die" and actively "killing." It is argued that treatment refusal or withholding treatment equates to letting die (passive) and is justifiable, whereas PAS equates to killing (active) and is not justifiable. 
    3. Potential for abuse: Here the argument is that certain groups of people, lacking access to care and support, may be pushed into assisted death. Furthermore, assisted death may become a cost-containment strategy. Burdened family members and health care providers may encourage option of assisted death. To protect against these abuses, it is argued, PAS should remain illegal. 
    4. Professional integrity: Here opponents point to the historical ethical traditions of medicine, strongly opposed to taking life. For instance, the Hippocratic oath states, "I will not administer poison to anyone where asked," and "Be of benefit, or at least do no harm." Furthermore, major professional groups (AMA, AGS) oppose assisted death. The overall concern is that linking PAS to the practice of medicine could harm the public's image of the profession. 
    5. Fallibility of the profession: The concern raised here is that physicians will make mistakes. For instance there may be uncertainty in diagnosis and prognosis. There may be errors in diagnosis and treatment of depression, or inadequate treatment of pain. Thus the State has an obligation to protect lives from these inevitable mistakes. 

  • What are the arguments against PAS?

      Those that argue that PAS should remain illegal often offer arguments such as these: 
     
    1. Sanctity of life: This argument points out strong religious and secular traditions against taking human life. It is argued that assisted suicide is morally wrong because it contradicts these beliefs. 
    2. Passive vs. Active distinction: The argument here holds that there is an important difference between passively "letting die" and actively "killing." It is argued that treatment refusal or withholding treatment equates to letting die (passive) and is justifiable, whereas PAS equates to killing (active) and is not justifiable. 
    3. Potential for abuse: Here the argument is that certain groups of people, lacking access to care and support, may be pushed into assisted death. Furthermore, assisted death may become a cost-containment strategy. Burdened family members and health care providers may encourage option of assisted death. To protect against these abuses, it is argued, PAS should remain illegal. 
    4. Professional integrity: Here opponents point to the historical ethical traditions of medicine, strongly opposed to taking life. For instance, the Hippocratic oath states, "I will not administer poison to anyone where asked," and "Be of benefit, or at least do no harm." Furthermore, major professional groups (AMA, AGS) oppose assisted death. The overall concern is that linking PAS to the practice of medicine could harm the public's image of the profession. 
    5. Fallibility of the profession: The concern raised here is that physicians will make mistakes. For instance there may be uncertainty in diagnosis and prognosis. There may be errors in diagnosis and treatment of depression, or inadequate treatment of pain. Thus the State has an obligation to protect lives from these inevitable mistakes. 

  • What are the arguments against PAS?

      Those that argue that PAS should remain illegal often offer arguments such as these: 
     
    1. Sanctity of life: This argument points out strong religious and secular traditions against taking human life. It is argued that assisted suicide is morally wrong because it contradicts these beliefs. 
    2. Passive vs. Active distinction: The argument here holds that there is an important difference between passively "letting die" and actively "killing." It is argued that treatment refusal or withholding treatment equates to letting die (passive) and is justifiable, whereas PAS equates to killing (active) and is not justifiable. 
    3. Potential for abuse: Here the argument is that certain groups of people, lacking access to care and support, may be pushed into assisted death. Furthermore, assisted death may become a cost-containment strategy. Burdened family members and health care providers may encourage option of assisted death. To protect against these abuses, it is argued, PAS should remain illegal. 
    4. Professional integrity: Here opponents point to the historical ethical traditions of medicine, strongly opposed to taking life. For instance, the Hippocratic oath states, "I will not administer poison to anyone where asked," and "Be of benefit, or at least do no harm." Furthermore, major professional groups (AMA, AGS) oppose assisted death. The overall concern is that linking PAS to the practice of medicine could harm the public's image of the profession. 
    5. Fallibility of the profession: The concern raised here is that physicians will make mistakes. For instance there may be uncertainty in diagnosis and prognosis. There may be errors in diagnosis and treatment of depression, or inadequate treatment of pain. Thus the State has an obligation to protect lives from these inevitable mistakes. 
  • espect for autonomy

  • What are the arguments against PAS?

      Those that argue that PAS should remain illegal often offer arguments such as these: 
     
    1. Sanctity of life: This argument points out strong religious and secular traditions against taking human life. It is argued that assisted suicide is morally wrong because it contradicts these beliefs. 
    2. Passive vs. Active distinction: The argument here holds that there is an important difference between passively "letting die" and actively "killing." It is argued that treatment refusal or withholding treatment equates to letting die (passive) and is justifiable, whereas PAS equates to killing (active) and is not justifiable. 
    3. Potential for abuse: Here the argument is that certain groups of people, lacking access to care and support, may be pushed into assisted death. Furthermore, assisted death may become a cost-containment strategy. Burdened family members and health care providers may encourage option of assisted death. To protect against these abuses, it is argued, PAS should remain illegal. 
    4. Professional integrity: Here opponents point to the historical ethical traditions of medicine, strongly opposed to taking life. For instance, the Hippocratic oath states, "I will not administer poison to anyone where asked," and "Be of benefit, or at least do no harm." Furthermore, major professional groups (AMA, AGS) oppose assisted death. The overall concern is that linking PAS to the practice of medicine could harm the public's image of the profession. 
    5. Fallibility of the profession: The concern raised here is that physicians will make mistakes. For instance there may be uncertainty in diagnosis and prognosis. There may be errors in diagnosis and treatment of depression, or inadequate treatment of pain. Thus the State has an obligation to protect lives from these inevitable mistakes. 
  • • mstances death are very personal. Competent person should have right to choose death. 
    • Justice: Justice requires that we "treat
  • • Respect for autonomy: Decisions about time and circumstances death are very personal. Competent person should have right to choose death. 
    • Justice: Justice requires that we "treat like cases alike." Competent, terminally ill patients are allowed to hasten death by treatment refusal. For some patients, treatment refusal will not suffice to hasten death; only option is suicide. Justice requires that we should allow assisted death for these patients. 
    • Compassion: Suffering means more than pain; there are other physical and psychological burdens. It is not always possible to relieve suffering. Thus PAS may be a compassionate response to unbearable suffering. 
    • Individual liberty vs. state interest: Though society has strong interest in preserving life, that interest lessens when person is terminally ill and has strong desire to end life. A complete prohibition on assisted death excessively limits personal liberty. Therefore PAS should be allowed in certain cases. 
    • Openness of discussion: Some would argue that assisted death already occurs, albeit in secret. For example, morphine drips ostensibly used for pain relief may be a covert form of assisted death or euthanasia. That PAS is illegal prevents open discussion, in which patients and physicians could engage. Legalization of PAS would promote open discussion.
  • • Respect for autonomy: Decisions about time and circumstances death are very personal. Competent person should have right to choose death. 
    • Justice: Justice requires that we "treat like cases alike." Competent, terminally ill patients are allowed to hasten death by treatment refusal. For some patients, treatment refusal will not suffice to hasten death; only option is suicide. Justice requires that we should allow assisted death for these patients. 
    • Compassion: Suffering means more than pain; there are other physical and psychological burdens. It is not always possible to relieve suffering. Thus PAS may be a compassionate response to unbearable suffering. 
    • Individual liberty vs. state interest: Though society has strong interest in preserving life, that interest lessens when person is terminally ill and has strong desire to end life. A complete prohibition on assisted death excessively limits personal liberty. Therefore PAS should be allowed in certain cases. 
    • Openness of discussion: Some would argue that assisted death already occurs, albeit in secret. For example, morphine drips ostensibly used for pain relief may be a covert form of assisted death or euthanasia. That PAS is illegal prevents open discussion, in which patients and physicians could engage. Legalization of PAS would promote open discussion.
  • • Respect for autonomy: Decisions about time and circumstances death are very personal. Competent person should have right to choose death. 
    • Justice: Justice requires that we "treat like cases alike." Competent, terminally ill patients are allowed to hasten death by treatment refusal. For some patients, treatment refusal will not suffice to hasten death; only option is suicide. Justice requires that we should allow assisted death for these patients. 
    • Compassion: Suffering means more than pain; there are other physical and psychological burdens. It is not always possible to relieve suffering. Thus PAS may be a compassionate response to unbearable suffering. 
    • Individual liberty vs. state interest: Though society has strong interest in preserving life, that interest lessens when person is terminally ill and has strong desire to end life. A complete prohibition on assisted death excessively limits personal liberty. Therefore PAS should be allowed in certain cases. 
    • Openness of discussion: Some would argue that assisted death already occurs, albeit in secret. For example, morphine drips ostensibly used for pain relief may be a covert form of assisted death or euthanasia. That PAS is illegal prevents open discussion, in which patients and physicians could engage. Legalization of PAS would promote open discussion.
  • • Respect for autonomy: Decisions about time and circumstances death are very personal. Competent person should have right to choose death. 
    • Justice: Justice requires that we "treat like cases alike." Competent, terminally ill patients are allowed to hasten death by treatment refusal. For some patients, treatment refusal will not suffice to hasten death; only option is suicide. Justice requires that we should allow assisted death for these patients. 
    • Compassion: Suffering means more than pain; there are other physical and psychological burdens. It is not always possible to relieve suffering. Thus PAS may be a compassionate response to unbearable suffering. 
    • Individual liberty vs. state interest: Though society has strong interest in preserving life, that interest lessens when person is terminally ill and has strong desire to end life. A complete prohibition on assisted death excessively limits personal liberty. Therefore PAS should be allowed in certain cases. 
    • Openness of discussion: Some would argue that assisted death already occurs, albeit in secret. For example, morphine drips ostensibly used for pain relief may be a covert form of assisted death or euthanasia. That PAS is illegal prevents open discussion, in which patients and physicians could engage. Legalization of PAS would promote open discussion.
  • • Respect for autonomy: Decisions about time and circumstances death are very personal. Competent person should have right to choose death. 
    • Justice: Justice requires that we "treat like cases alike." Competent, terminally ill patients are allowed to hasten death by treatment refusal. For some patients, treatment refusal will not suffice to hasten death; only option is suicide. Justice requires that we should allow assisted death for these patients. 
    • Compassion: Suffering means more than pain; there are other physical and psychological burdens. It is not always possible to relieve suffering. Thus PAS may be a compassionate response to unbearable suffering. 
    • Individual liberty vs. state interest: Though society has strong interest in preserving life, that interest lessens when person is terminally ill and has strong desire to end life. A complete prohibition on assisted death excessively limits personal liberty. Therefore PAS should be allowed in certain cases. 
    • Openness of discussion: Some would argue that assisted death already occurs, albeit in secret. For example, morphine drips ostensibly used for pain relief may be a covert form of assisted death or euthanasia. That PAS is illegal prevents open discussion, in which patients and physicians could engage. Legalization of PAS would promote open discussion.

  • What are the arguments against PAS?

      Those that argue that PAS should remain illegal often offer arguments such as these: 
     
    1. Sanctity of life: This argument points out strong religious and secular traditions against taking human life. It is argued that assisted suicide is morally wrong because it contradicts these beliefs. 
    2. Passive vs. Active distinction: The argument here holds that there is an important difference between passively "letting die" and actively "killing." It is argued that treatment refusal or withholding treatment equates to letting die (passive) and is justifiable, whereas PAS equates to killing (active) and is not justifiable. 
    3. Potential for abuse: Here the argument is that certain groups of people, lacking access to care and support, may be pushed into assisted death. Furthermore, assisted death may become a cost-containment strategy. Burdened family members and health care providers may encourage option of assisted death. To protect against these abuses, it is argued, PAS should remain illegal. 
    4. Professional integrity: Here opponents point to the historical ethical traditions of medicine, strongly opposed to taking life. For instance, the Hippocratic oath states, "I will not administer poison to anyone where asked," and "Be of benefit, or at least do no harm." Furthermore, major professional groups (AMA, AGS) oppose assisted death. The overall concern is that linking PAS to the practice of medicine could harm the public's image of the profession. 
    5. Fallibility of the profession: The concern raised here is that physicians will make mistakes. For instance there may be uncertainty in diagnosis and prognosis. There may be errors in diagnosis and treatment of depression, or inadequate treatment of pain. Thus the State has an obligation to protect lives from these inevitable mistakes. 

  16 more annotations...

• 04 May 10
  

  Trevor Brannen

  Physician-Assisted Suicide

• 27 Apr 10
  

  Patricia Ayers

  physician assisted suicide proj1 good

  • Is physician-assisted suicide the same as euthanasia?

      No. Physician-assisted suicide refers to the physician providing   the means for death, most often with a prescription. The patient,   not the physician, will ultimately administer the lethal medication.   Euthanasia generally means that the physician would act directly,   for instance by giving a lethal injection, to end the patient's life.   Some other practices that should be distinguished from PAS are:  
     
    • Terminal sedation: This refers to the practice of sedating a terminally ill competent patient to the point of unconsciousness, then allowing the patient to die of her disease, starvation, or dehydration. 
    • Withholding/withdrawing life-sustaining treatments: When a competent patient makes an informed decision to refuse life-sustaining treatment, there is virtual unanimity in state law and in the medical profession that this wish should be respected. 
    • Pain medication that may hasten death: Often a terminally ill, suffering patient may require dosages of pain medication that impair respiration or have other effects that may hasten death. It is generally held by most professional societies, and supported in court decisions, that this is justifiable so long as the primary intent is to relieve suffering. 
  • Is PAS illegal?
• 30 May 09
  

  a s

  : Discusses arguments for and against physician assisted suicide, including professional obligation to develop a respectful response to a patient's request. Includes cases with discussion and references.

  pas homework

• 23 Apr 09
  

  Randi Boerman
• 29 Mar 09
  

  Daniela Maurer

  Pro/con PAS

• 21 Mar 09
  

  Essay 3

• 23 Sep 08
  

  Jere O

  assisted-suicide bioethics subject-guide tutorial import-2011

• 06 Mar 08
  

  mayaflower

  • Is physician-assisted suicide ethical?

     The ethics of PAS continue to be debated. Some argue that PAS is ethical (see arguments in favor). Often this is argued on the grounds that PAS may be a rational choice for a person who is choosing to die to escape unbearable suffering. Furthermore, the physician's duty to alleviate suffering may, at times, justify the act of providing assistance with suicide. These arguments rely a great deal on the notion of individual autonomy, recognizing the right of competent people to chose for themselves the course of their life, including how it will end.
• 02 Jan 08
  

  windhamms

  assisted suicide

Would you like to comment?

Join Diigo for a free account, or sign in if you are already a member.