You’re enacted in October 1997. This quantification legalized PAS

You’re visiting the hospice for the tenth day this month; you’re visiting your Grandpa, who has the terminal illness and has been getting increasingly worse every day, leaving him motionless. He isn’t the same grandpa that told you funny jokes or went hunting with you every winter. Every day he requests you to kill him, is this sacrifice worth your moral values? The debate over physician-assisted suicide (PAS) is one of the most controversial topics and is controlled at the state level. Physician-assisted suicide is mainly a request to end suffering, employing death through lethal doses of medication. Over the years, this has divided America. Statistics show 48% Americans say physician-assisted suicide is morally wrong compared to a close 45% who say it is acceptable. However, in another poll, the question was, “do you think people have right to end their own life?” and the strong majority agreed ( Karaim, Reed.”). The benefits of PAS include Patient does not have to suffer, Human Rights of Freedom, Die with Dignity; while the disadvantage includes Separation of church and State, Doctors gave too much power, Put pressure on the patient with a Mental disorder.    PAS commenced in 1994 when the Oregon Dignity Act, was passed by ballot measure in 1994 and enacted in October 1997. This quantification legalized PAS  by sanctioning physician to prescribe a lethal dose of medication for the terminally ill. Experts predicted that legalized assisted suicide would make doctors not look for other sources of resolution for dying patient.(Ganzini”).    The Death with Dignity Act gives a patient the right-to-die. However, it is still a controversial topic that raises many ethical and moral questions. For example, under Oregon’s Death with Dignity Act, such acts were legal. People argue PAS doesn’t go with the job description and diminishes the physician’s role as a healer and no one could control PAS it could lead serious problems for the patients. Physicians for Compassionate Care contends that the Oregon law endangers patients because the physician is exempt from meeting ordinary standards of care. The Physicians for Compassionate Care Educational Foundation is dedicated to preserving the traditional role of physicians to heal patients and minimize pain (“Physician-Assisted Suicide Violates Medical Ethics”).Critics argue that Physicians could lose their bedside manner towards patients due to this Act because the physician wouldn’t see the importance of helping the patient anymore because he is going to die soon. They argue it is not appropriate for doctors, who are supposed to heal people, to participate in bringing about the deaths of their patients (“Introduction to Physician-Assisted Suicide: At Issue”). Doctors are supposed to heal people; this all comes back to the ethical conduct known as the Hippocratic Oath. Every doctor makes the vow to not harm their patient, but “I will not administer poison” is absent from modern versions of the oath. Some argue that mandating physician-assisted suicide undermines long-established notions of medical integrity, and both the American Medical Association (AMA) and the American College of Physicians (ACP) oppose it on these grounds (“Assisted Suicide”).    In response to this, advocate for PAS says that it’s a patient right to decide whether he or she wants to live. The issue with PAS  is the people want to control how they die and do it when they fill the right time to go. If the right-to-die is valued so much in the United States then shouldn’t the patient and family have the choice for life-ending decisions.(“Physician-Assisted Suicide Should Be Legalized”)? “A survey was conducted among Oregon physicians who were eligible to prescribe under the Death with Dignity Act. Based on the responses of 144 physicians who had received a request for PAS, The data indicate that one in 10 requests for a lethal prescription resulted in assisted suicide”. Physicians reported that as a result of palliative interventions, some patients change their minds about assisted suicide” (Ganzini, Linda. “Legalized Physician-Assisted Suicide Has Improved the Care of Terminally Ill Patients”). So it is the option to choose that is even more important than the completed suicide.    One reason surprising by people support of PAS  is because of religious belief. John Shelby Spong, who served as Bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Newark, New Jersey, advocates for people’s choice and the right to die. He says assisted suicide violates neither the Bible nor the holiness of life. For example, in the Bible, the story about Judas Iscariot, whose story was precisely shaped by the account of Ahithophel. Judas also ate at the Lord’s table and was said to have betrayed Jesus. When Judas was discovered guilty, he, like Ahithophel, hanged himself. The authors of the Bible assumed that for Ahithophel and Judas Iscariot, suicide was an appropriate punishment for their crimes (“Physician-Assisted Suicide Is Not Contrary to Christian Beliefs”).     Though some biblical scholars and leaders support PAS, others use religion as an opposition. Those who oppose physician-assisted suicide on religious grounds oppose physician-assisted suicide because they believe it is never acceptable to deliberately bring about the end of a human life. Life is a gift bestowed by God and therefore cannot be taken by anyone but God, according to these critics (“Introduction to Physician-Assisted Suicide: At Issue”). But critics say their arguments against assisted suicide are unconvincing. In asserting that the Bible condemns suicide in any form, they ignore biblical passages that they find outdated or inconvenient (“Physician-Assisted Suicide Is Not Contrary to Christian Beliefs”). Christians argue their affliction of the illness does not diminish the quality of life those who are in the clinical condition called the “vegetative state.” The “vegetative state” is when someone is awake and sleep, but show no awareness of their surroundings. They still may open their eyes, make sounds, or move. In God’s eyes, they continue to retain their value and human dignity in all of its fullness. As such, they still have the right to basic health and rehabilitative care. To hasten their death by withdrawing nutrition and hydration is immoral and a serious violation of God.As a doctor and as a church you have moral duties to that patient in a ” vegetative stage” and can not take their lives without lessening their professional ethics and Christian solidarity(“Hastening Death Is Contrary to Christian Beliefs”).         Another argument against PAS is the that it will prompt patient abuse. The healthcare system sees the terminally ill as an ” expense” thus; if social insurance suppliers gave lawful expert to do PAS, they would do as such even against patients’ desires. Such an approach would diminish the expenses of looking after the genuinely sick. If Physicians in the past applied the approach to the AIDS community in 1995, before the widespread use of drugs, many people might have had their lives terminated to save money. There have been people facing a death sentence who’ve staged remarkable recoveries. Had physician-assisted death been right back when hope was scarce, some wouldn’t be around today (“Legalizing Physician-Assisted Suicide Would Lead to Patient Abuse”).  Likewise, they say that the chances of them using PAS is more significant than choosing to stay on life support since it would be more costly and draw out life. (“Legalizing Physician-Assisted Suicide Would Not Lead to Patient Abuse.”)To challenge people who see the value of physician-assisted death as the ultimate money-saver (“Legalizing Physician-Assisted Suicide Would Lead to Patient Abuse”), there is no evidence that PAS would be cheaper or that people would choose it over any other options. First, if PAS restricted the terminally ill, as in Oregon and in most of the proposals to legalize it, this would substantially limit those eligible for it as well as the length of life that would be lost by any patient who did it. That last part of life is often excruciating and expensive.  Patients who are not terminally ill have the right to refuse life-sustaining treatment and sometimes give up many years of possible life. A study shows, In the 1995 update of the original Remmelink study of 1990, that an estimated 2.6 percent of all deaths were the result of PAS. However, 20.2 percent were from a decision to forgo treatment, and another 19.1 percent were from the use of opioids in large doses (“Legalizing Physician-Assisted Suicide Would Not Lead to Patient Abuse”). This shows, the patient, not the doctor, is the one who administers the lethal medication. The person requesting physician-assisted suicide is typically a terminally ill individual who has decided to end his or her life without waiting for the disease to take its natural course (“Introduction to Physician-Assisted Suicide: At Issue”).    To receive PAS, one must travel to states where it is legal such as Oregon, Vermont, Washington, and California. The guidelines state you must have a terminal illness as well as a prognosis of six months or less to live. In Montana, it must go through the courts to get PAS.The requirements of each state vary, but mainly involve a prescription from a licensed physician, approved by the state in which the patient is a resident (“Physician-Assisted Suicide Fast Facts”). Out of those Thirty-four states, six states legalize PAS all allowed permitting physician-assisted death under very restricted conditions and guidelines that must follow  (“Physician-Assisted Suicide Should Be Legalized”).      People may argue that in the Constitution of the United States there is no distinction between the terminally ill or disabled with six months or with one year to live. Consequently, the six-month prognosis is subjective, even if it agreed upon by two different physicians. But it aims to protect vulnerable groups — including the poor, the elderly, and disabled persons — from harm, neglect, and mistakes. “No matter how carefully any guidelines frame it, assisted suicide and euthanasia will be practiced through the prism of social inequality and bias that characterizes the delivery of services in all segments of all society, including health care” (“Legalizing Assisted Suicide Would Lead to Involuntary Killing”). This quote explains, that procedural safeguards cannot adequately protect them, there is no one to enforce those safeguards or to watch to see if they are following the rules.    When families and doctors differ in opinion about whether to terminate a loved one’s life, the court gets involved.  In a case that had to do with a patient named Terri Schiavo who suffered cardiac arrest that destroyed much her brain, leaving her motionless. The request from Schiavo family was to disconnect the tubes from her suffering stationary body. It brought nationwide coverage leading congress was in a debate to decide medical treatment for someone who is unable to speak for themselves. The Lawmakers in Washington at first proposed to get involved and help in the Schiavo case it would have given the federal government legal control over any withdrawal of life support from totally disabled patients without written medical orders.This request by the Schiavo’s family was denied by the federal judge ( “Right to Die”). The  Montana Supreme Court has declared physician-assisted suicide legal under certain conditions in the state (“Assisted Suicide”).    However, Compassion & Choices argues that doctors should be able to work out the parameters of  PAS within their professional standards, as they would any other procedure, not through the courts(“Assisted Suicide”). Right-to-die advocates think stricter State Department laws will threaten their right to refuse medical treatment including food and fluids. Their director, Lee says “There is a movement to make it harder and harder to articulate our wishes and to enforce our wishes… social conservatives are asking for a higher and higher standard of proof to the degree that people who do not fill out advance directives may get no consideration of their wishes at all” ( “Right to Die” ). The issue of PAS is not just medical; it involves politics as well. Since PAS not written in the constitution, the issue belongs to the states to decide how they want to approach it. In the Supreme court case of a Missouri woman Nancy Beth Cruzan, who had been in a “persistent vegetative state” because of 1983 car accident. Nancy’s parents wanted her feeding tube withdrawn. However, due to the absence of a living will, the supreme court would only allow life support to withheld if there was clear and convincing evidence of the parents’ wishes for Nancy. The Supreme Court wanted strong proof that would give them a reason to disconnect the tube, and the state court concluded the evidence found by the Cruzans family was strong enough to detach the tube ( “Right to Die”).    Since The Cruzan case, voters in three western states voted on legalizing PAS. Supporters of the PAS has had many challenges such as legal, which the terminally ill have a constitutional right to choose their choice of how they want to leave this world. The issue has challenged the states of New York and Washington state laws in 1997, and in both cases, it was rejected by the U.S Supreme Court. This showed the political battle between people who supported the decision and the people who did not support it, as it battled between the people and the Supreme Court for years (“Right to Die”).There are many arguments for and against physician-assisted suicide. Whether it is right or wrong, depends on person’s values, morals, religion, experiences, and politics. In general, the topic of choosing to die brings up emotions and opinions, teaching us that autonomy is a controversial topic in the medical world and showing us the fine line between deciding for the patient and providing information to the patient without influencing them.