Safeguards

There are instances when people who are terminally ill or severely injured who want to terminate their own lives. Sometimes, due to the state of their injuries or conditions, those people are unable to end their own pain. It is in many of these cases that the patients request assistance in their suicides. This kind of request is like to happen in facilities where the patient receives long term or permanent care. Physician assisted suicide is a hotly contested issue. There is support for those who believe this kind of "assistance" is morally, ethically, and otherwise wrong. There is support from people who believe that a person has a right to choose when his/her life ends. These people believe that physician assisted suicide is a form of altruistic assistance. There are valid points made by people on both sides of this issue and there is certainly room within the debate to be undecided or to be conflicted. Secondary, tertiary, and long term providers/facilities have the power to improve the preservation of life and they have the power to assist with the end of life. The paper presents arguments of this debate and reflects upon the issues at the surface as well as the underlying issues of the debate over physician assisted suicide.

The ethical dilemma of this highly controversial subject will continue to split our approach to the notion of assisted suicide. As we age, we come to terms with our own mortality, how we choose to leave this world isn’t always up us. For those who suffer from a terminal fate, maybe they should have the choice, and those who understand their current condition can provide them the dignity they deserve without repercussions. The only way we as a society can move ahead, is to find a common

Much of modern medicine prolongs not only living, but also dying. Physician-assisted suicide is a quite controversial topic as it brings up questions about the morality of killing, the credibility of consent, and the duty of physicians. This is not a new problem; assisted suicide has been discussed in all cultures from very early historical times to the present. However, medicine's recent technological progress has led to an increased ability to extend life. This new potential has made this problem much more pressing than it has in the past. I believe opposition to assisted suicide is in error not only because it does not allow for mercy, but also because the position does not take into account one's autonomy. I

In today’s modern society, to prohibit a law or practice takes greater effort and stronger argument than permitting a law or practice. In result of this, the rights and liberty of an individual are very important and would require captivating reasons to overrule it. Since the decision to choose for physician assisted suicide or euthanasia is extremely personal, the famous “innocent until proven guilty” is to be stressed to a great extent when dealing with this topic on debate terms. An individual has a basic right to determine the course of

Opponents of this practice feel that patients may be too ill or worried that they will not be able to think through to exercise a real inform consent. The legality of physician-assisted suicide may interfere with good physician-patient relationship. Patients may feel that if their physician is willing to participate in the act, then, society and the doctor would prefer that death occur. This misunderstanding may further imply that the terminally ill people are expected to end their lives. Besides, the legalization of physician-assisted suicide increases the likelihood that death will become acceptable for other people such as the mentally disable, the physically challenged, and the elderly (Weiss & Lonnquist,

Radical assumptions have been made on whether or not physician-assisted death should be legalized in the United States because of its citizens’ uncertainty about this delicate subject. Physician-assisted suicide is the method by which an individual is provided with the drugs or equipment needed to commit suicide. The terms “aid in dying” or “death with dignity” are preferred over “suicide” due to their distinction from "suicide," where assisted or not, it remains illegal while “aid in dying” is permitted. This allows for the patient to have control over their life and have the right to be able to choose whether to live a life filled with tedious pain and/or suffering, or end their misery and be able to rest in peace.

Assisted suicide looks good and innocent on paper, but the legalization of mercy killing carries a dark side. Once that door is opened, it may not be easily closed. Regulations can be in place but fraud is rampant in insurance and in the medical field no matter how much it is regulated. In Taking Sides, Clashing Views in Lifespan Development, a statement is made that directly shows the slippery slope of legalized assisted suicide; “In the words of an Australian politician, when we are past our “best before” or “use by” date, we should be checked out quickly, cheaply and efficiently as possible.” This view sums up the argument of why not. The mystery of life and death are taken away and humans become industrialized as a piece of meat. Legalization would also affect medical education and training of physicians. The goal of doctors is to save lives, but if euthanasia is legalized that could all change.

It is mostly debated that as an expression of autonomy i.e. one’s right to make independent choices without any external influences, a competent adult can refuse medical treatment, even in situations where this could result in his/her death. However, when it comes to actively ending a life via euthanasia it becomes an extensively debate regarding the rights of an individual to make that choice. The article “A Doctor-Assisted Disaster for Medicine” loosely examines the negative implications of assisted suicide laws on patients. Toffler’s article sheds light upon how the law has changed the relationship between patients and their medical provider.

Pressing for families and their loved ones, an act to be decided for somebody suffering from pain – physician-assisted suicide is a touchy subject for many. In cases where the intolerable suffering can be judged by the patient, physicians should extend their hands to initiate euthanasia through ethical means. I would say that it can be justified when terminal illnesses restrict the patient in a hospital bed with only the plug binding themselves to their bodies. I would say that it can be justified when the hastened death of somebody would benefit others, when the burden of a human, so sick, carries onto others. It is a fact that a life support program for somebody without the will to live can cost thousands of dollars, in contrast to the smaller

The author is extremely compelled that aid in dying should be legal in every single state and that more than a minority of people should support or accept this controversial topic. Span is constrained by the belief that the federal government should cover the cost of the lethal drugs because many patients cannot pay such a high fee (Span). This causes a gap to form between some readers because Span ties a split political viewpoint to aid in dying and everyone is not going to see eye to eye with her solution to the high fee of the medication. The author gives an authoritative and a compelling argument about the positive side of assisted suicide such as the patient’s peaceful death and the choice they can make concerning the way they die (Span). In doing so, she uses first hand experiences from differing viewpoints of aid in dying including the doctors’, patient’s, and family

It is obvious discussing physician-assisted suicide is a very controversial issue that is discussed daily by those who wish to die to avoid loss of dignity and also by those who think it is unethical. For physician-assisted suicide to even be considered, the patient must be of sound mind when they are requesting death with dignity. Physician-assisted suicide should be a legal option for people who are unable to end their own lives. However, there should be safeguards to prevent any sort of abuse. There should be the legalization of physician-assisted suicide, but not for active euthanasia. “It should never be contemplated as a substitute for comprehensive comfort care or for working with patients to resolve the physical, personal, and social challenges posed by the process of dying” (Meier, D.E., p. 294). If an incurable patient who is suffering asks for specific help in physician-assisted suicide, physicians should have the obligation to fully scrutinize the request. Not only is it the seriousness of considering medicine as the placement of certain suicide an issue, it is a form of direct killing. Medical advances are surely making it easier to reduce pain and suffering, so why should there be policies devised and sanctioned by the state to kill those in pain and suffering?

The debate on legalizing assisted suicide is an issue across the globe. It has brought countries to contemplate on the legalities of the matter in their respective legislative branches of government. Assisted suicide is just simply a matter of assessing one's will to perform such act with the permission of the subject or the patient in such way his will be done. The debate now focuses on either the act shall be legalized or not.

I’m inclined to agree with your notion of the need for safeguards to be established for patient safety especially with the introduction of technological advancements like AIs. I believe important issues need to be addressed with regards to appropriate risk management and oversights especially with the introduction of new products or services in the market. A priority assessment would be the uses of AI and machine learning in view of their risks, including adherence to relevant protocols on data privacy, conduct risks, and cybersecurity (FSB, 2017). It is also equally important to have an appropriate testing and training of tools with impartial data and feedback mechanisms to ensure applications do what they are intended to do.

The issues surrounding assisted suicide are multifaceted. One could argue the practice of assisted suicide can appear to be a sensible response to genuine human suffering. Allowing health care professionals to carry out these actions may seem appropriate, in many cases, when the decision undoubtedly promotes the patient's autonomy. From this viewpoint, the distinctions made between assisted suicide and the withholding of life-sustaining measures appears artificial and tough to sustain. In many cases, the purpose and consequences of these practices are equivalent. On the contrary, if

     Once having a mere glimpse into the lives of the terminally ill or disabled, some are able to understand their plight; but usually most are not. In most cases, these people are able to take what they've been given and deal with it. However, in some cases, some simply can not tolerate their lives as they are. They feel that the only solution to their problem is to end their lives. Unfortunately, in some cases, the terminally ill or disabled are not capable of accomplishing this task by themselves, and are left trapped in a life that they do not want. In these cases, when one wishes to end his life and is terminally ill, disabled, or otherwise unable to do so independently, he should have the right to die by assisted suicide. Although most people that are terminally ill or disabled do not wish to end their lives, there are still those few who do. While examining the issue of assisted suicide, three facets of the controversy must be considered: the political, the moral, and the human or compassionate views. By supporting their decision, we support their right to choose and decide what they want to do with their bodies and their lives, we do not