An argument against physician-assisted suicide (pas)
Overview: In this assignment, you will write a reflection essay that explores how you chose to incorporate feedback on your argument, your exploration of the issue, and your source integration in the persuasive essay, as well as how your incorporation of resources supported your claim. Additionally, you will note any challenges you faced in incorporating resources and developing your argument throughout the writing process.
Prompt: Previously, you identified an issue in your current major, a major you are interested in pursuing, or your field of work. You then established an argument and supported that argument with research and relevant evidence. In this assignment, you will reflect on how you chose to incorporate feedback concerning your argument, your exploration of the issue, and your integration of sources. Additionally, you will note any challenges you faced in incorporating resources and developing your argument throughout the writing process.
Specifically, the following critical elements must be addressed:
- Reflection: Each response should be one fully developed paragraph in length (5–8 sentences).
- What peer-review feedback did you choose to incorporate concerning your argument and why?
- What challenges did you face in developing your argument? What could you have done differently?
- What peer-review feedback did you choose to incorporate concerning your exploration of the issue and why?
- What peer-review feedback did you choose to incorporate concerning your effective source integration and why?
- What writing strategies were most effective in supporting your argument, given your audience, subject, and purpose?
Guidelines for Submission: Save your work in a Word document with double spacing, 12-point Times New Roman font, and one-inch margins.
Running head: AN ARGUMENT AGAINST PHYSICIAN-ASSISTED SUICIDE (PAS) 1
PHYSICIAN-ASSISTED SUICIDE (PAS) 6
An Argument against Physician-Assisted Suicide (PAS)
An Argument against Physician-Assisted Suicide (PAS)
The right of a terminally ill person to get assisted-suicide remains contentious, with assisted-suicide drawing diverse opinions across various States. Proponents argue on the basis that it is a right for human beings while the opponents argue on ethical reasons and religious perspectives. If one feels that there is no quality of life left, is it legal to end life at that point? This is a controversial question that has not been settled by many across the United States because of the moral aspect attached to it. I think that the life of a person should remain sacred and no one has the right to end except the creator, thus, in this discussion, I will argue against physician-assisted suicide and should not be legalized. Also, I will empty my arguments about why I feel this act should not be legalized by presenting research-based arguments to support this claim. As well, I will discuss opposing arguments accompanied by examples. Additionally, I will react and invalidate the counter-contention dependent on my research carried to show why I feel that my thesis is right.
Both the patient and the physician are involved in facilitating the act of PAS since the patient out of goodwill accepts to take lethal medicines that will result in death. In 1997, the state of Oregon became the first state globally to legalize PAS under the authorization of Doctor Jack Kevorkian who created the procedure. Doctor Jack Kevorkian introduced PAS intending to remove the suffering and pain of the chronically ill patient by killing them mercifully. At some point, some patients requested PAS after feeling their life is no longer bearable. I feel PAS does not value life as a gift from God, and terminating one’s life through PAS is unacceptable and should never at one point become legal.
There exist a vast difference when a terminally ill person dies naturally, and when any form of death assistance comes into play. Various researches provide immense evidence showing how those requesting for the PAS are ambivalent about it. As indicated by Emanuel et al (2016), “once PAS is ratified legal, it is anticipated that patients will undergo a period of subtle stress when adapting bearing in mind their parents and friends are suffering due to heavy medical bills that continue to count.” The group that goes for the PAS believes that, once they die, some stress-related issues will be alleviated.
Many reasons make people choose PAS despite them being hesitant about it. Other than these reasons, Yang & Curlin (2016) states “there exist many effective killing methods available other than involving a physician in PAS services, plus, looking for the doctor’s help must, subsequently, be a hidden “weep for help” and a sign that the patient at some level wants to be talked out of self-killing.” In some cases, the patient’s request for PAS does not mean he/she wants to die, but its due to other underlying issues such as financial and psychological problems pushing the patient to commit the act to get positive solutions.
Currently, there is a great advancement in healthcare facilities that modern technological tools are used in different ways to alleviate pain in terminally ill patients. For what reason should suicide be a choice so as to keep away from pain, in the event that it can be controlled? For what reason supported by proponents of PAS, the act should not be deemed as an alternative to manage pain and a treatment option. “Pain can be controlled and ethically acceptable approaches must be complied with when managing pain because pain management could be perhaps one of the significant methods in end-of-life care” (O’Rourke, O’Rourke & Hudson, 2017). When a terminally ill patient is experiencing extreme pain, he/she should be assigned a physician who should expertly contain the situation. Ending a life is not an excellent option to go for when there are better alternatives available to use to manage pain.
The principles of medicine according to Sulmasy & Mueller (2018) seek to fight for the moral and ethical rights of human beings that PAS legalization is against. Hippocratic Oath does not give physicians mandate to prescribe any lethal drug to on request or advice as may endanger the life of a person. The life of a patient must be protected by medical practitioners. On the side of this view, specialists are considered to treat a patient and legalizing the end of their lives will be a break of their obligation and duty. One rule of morals, as I would like to think, to consider when reacting to a patient’s request for helped suicide is the principle of self-governance, which is simply the capacity to choose. The ethical principle of beneficence is the extension of the principle of autonomy since an individual who has control over life chooses what is right and what gives life meaning (Sulmasy & Mueller, 2018). It is the mandate of medical practitioners to understand how to handle assisted-suicide requests from patients.
Another argument against assisted-suicide depends on the reason that our society would begin down a “slippery slope” of manhandling the privilege to euthanize patients (Kussmaul, 2017). Many individuals fear that once the killing is accepted for the critically ill, it will turn out to be broadly practiced and in the end lead to the use of habitual killing. In extraordinary cases, some even accept that doctors will euthanize those that can’t bear the cost of clinical coverage just because it’s too genuinely and monetarily depleting. With the potential for a presented danger of hurting patients through involuntary killing, Dworkin’s theory of paternalism would not allow the legalization of euthanasia. At last, by not supporting assisted-suicide, individuals are thus protected to their benefit from the potential maltreatment of euthanizing patients involuntarily. The possibility of society heading down a slippery slope if assisted-suicide somehow managed to be legalized is impossible.
Concerning this issue, the legalization of assisted-suicide receives immense support from its proponents. Dying with dignity is the right many people claim to be granted. As indicated by Emanuel et al (2016), “many feel that demise with poise, either alone or with others, is unquestionably desirable over death without nobility, regardless of whether it be waiting or rather unexpected”. Many imagine that since they are in the last phases of their lives, they ought to reserve the privilege for all time to alleviate their pain and languishing.
Advocates of assisted-suicide believe that pain drugs don’t generally stop their agony and that their primary care physicians are not providing them with satisfying pain management methods. They feel that passing is the best way to for all time free them of their difficult condition. As indicated by Yang & Curlin (2016) “A large number of Americans with critical or interminable agony related to their clinical issues are being under-treated as doctors progressively neglect to give thorough pain medication – either because of lacking training, individual biases or fear of professionally prescribed medication misuse”. Many feel that passing is the main way out of their agony and lean toward death as an option in contrast to the poor quality of life.
Euthanasia doesn’t generally go easily and on certain events, there are excruciating outcomes that patients suffer from the medications that are prescribed. Some side effects can include outrageous perplexity, anxiety, and feelings of terror. As indicated by Yang & Curlin (2016), “The body can oust the medications through vomiting, or the individual may fall into a prolix condition of unconsciousness instead of passing on quickly”. In the event that a patient encounters complications from the medications given, it can make them languish over days before they really bite the dust. Since drugs affect each individual differently, there is no certain method to know whether euthanasia will go as arranged.
In summary, I can discern why an individual would need to end their agony and misery, however, I accept that aiding somebody’s demise is murder and in this manner, ought to remain illegal. As per O’Rourke, O’Rourke & Hudson (2017) “the Hippocratic Oath states, I will neither give a dangerous medication to anyone whenever requested it nor will I make a recommendation with this impact.” What does this Hippocratic Oath truly mean if a trusted doctor breaks his promise and aids a patient’s passing? In what capacity can trust be set up between a specialist and his patient if his fundamental objective conflicts with his promise to recuperate? At the point when doctors break this promise, the promise amounts to nothing. Passing with dignity can be practiced without the use of deadly infusions of morphine to aid one’s suicide. This kind of “killing” ought to never be legalized under any situation. No individual ought to ever reserve the option to take another person’s life, regardless of whether it is entreated.
References
Emanuel, E. J., Onwuteaka-Philipsen, B. D., Urwin, J. W., & Cohen, J. (2016). Attitudes and practices of euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide in the United States, Canada, and Europe. Jama, 316(1), 79-90.
Kussmaul, W. G. (2017). The slippery slope of the legalization of physician-assisted suicide. Annals of internal medicine, 167(8), 595-596.
O’Rourke, M. A., O’Rourke, M. C., & Hudson, M. F. (2017). Reasons to reject physician-assisted suicide/physician aid in dying.
Sulmasy, L. S., & Mueller, P. S. (2018). Ethics and the legalization of physician-assisted suicide. Annals of internal medicine, 168(11), 834-835.
Yang, Y. T., & Curlin, F. A. (2016). Why physicians should oppose assisted suicide. Jama, 315(3), 247-248.
Lorryn Tardy – critique to my persuasive essay
For this assignment I’ll be workshopping the work of Lisa Oll-Adikankwu. Lisa has chosen the topic of Assisted Suicide; she is against the practice and argues that it should be considered unethical and universally illegal.
Lisa appears to have a good understanding of the topic. Her sources are well researched and discuss a variety of key points from seemingly unbiased sources. Her sources are current, peer reviewed and based on statistical data.
Lisa’s summaries are well written, clear and concise. One thing I noticed is that the majority of her writing plan is summarized and cited at the end of each paragraph. I might suggest that she integrate more synthesis of the different sources, by combining evidence from more than one source per paragraph and using more in text citations or direct quotes to reinforce her key points.
I think that basic credentialing information could be provided for Lisa’s sources, this is something that looking back, I need to add as well. I think this could easily be done with just a simple “(Authors name, and their title, i.e. author, statistician, physician etc.…)”, when the source is introduced into the paper might provide a reinforced credibility of the source.
As far as connection of sources, as previously mentioned, I think that in order to illustrate a stronger argument, using multiple sources to reinforce a single key point would solidify Lisa’s argument. I feel that more evidence provided from a variety of different sources, will provide the reader with a stronger sense of credibility and less room for bias that could be argued if the point is only credited to one source.
One area that stuck out to me for counter argument, being that my paper is in favor of this issue, is in paragraph two where Lisa states that “physicians are not supposed to kill patients or help them kill themselves, and terminally ill patients are not in a position of making rational decisions about their lives.” I’d like to offer my argument for this particular statement. In states where assisted suicide (or as I prefer to refer to it, assisted dying) is legal, there are several criteria that a patient has to meet in order to be considered a candidate. These criteria include second, even third opinions to determine that death is imminent, as well psychological evaluation(s) and an extensive informed consent process that is a collaborative effort between the patient, the patient’s family, physicians, psychologists and nurses. It is a process that takes weeks to months. Patients that wish to be a candidate, should initiate the process as soon as they have been diagnosed by seeking a second opinion. As an emergency room nurse, I have been present for a substantial amount of diagnoses that are ‘likely’ terminal. Many of these patients presented to the emergency for a common ailment and have no indication that they don’t have the capacity to make such a decision. Receiving a terminal diagnosis does not automatically mean that the patient is all of a sudden incompetent or lacks the capacity to make a rational decision. It is at this stage in the diagnoses that patients should be informed of all options, including assisted dying. Once all criterion has been met and approved, the physician prescribes the medication for the patient to have on hand to self-administer when they feel that they are ready, this is a means to avoid the often-unavoidable suffering that comes with dying from a terminal illness. Terminal illness deaths are not the same as dying a natural death, which the majority of the time, can be medically managed much easier to minimize suffering.
Lisa’s sources appear to be credible and relevant. I t appears to me that the first source listed in her annotations ‘ The Case Against Physician-Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia’ written by Byrock in 2016, is potentially biased, although seems to be based from peer reviewed sources. Although I feel this source is biased, having an opposing view of this topic, I feel that it will serve Lisa well and give her the information and evidence she needs to formulate a strong argument. Her other two sources appear to be less biased as they seem to provide data and information from both sides of the issue.
Lisa’s writing mechanics are strong. Her writing plan is well articulated and there weren’t any parts that were unclear or confusing to me as I read it. There were not any spelling or grammatical errors that were immediately evident to me.
