This article has been corrected. This article has been cited by other articles in PMC.
In response, activists are using these stories to advance legislation that has otherwise been rejected by the people. At least 18 states across the country are considering whether to allow physician-assisted suicide.
But legalizing physician-assisted suicide would be a grave mistake.
The merciful thing would be to expect doctors to do no harm and ease the pain of those who suffer and support families and ministries in providing that care.
That seems harsh and extreme to me. The Hippocratic Oath proclaims: I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody who asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect. No one, especially a doctor, should be permitted to kill intentionally, or assist in killing intentionally, an innocent neighbor.
Doctors may help their patients to die a dignified death from natural causes, but they should not kill their patients or help them to kill themselves. Legalizing physician-assisted suicide, however, would be a grave mistake, as explained in a new Heritage Foundation report.
Endanger the weak and vulnerable, Corrupt the practice of medicine and the doctor—patient relationship, Compromise the family and the relationships between family generations and Betray human dignity and equality before the law.
To understand the problems with physician-assisted, one must understand what it entails and where it leads. What Is Physician-Assisted Suicide? With physician-assisted suicide, a doctor prescribes the deadly drug, but the patient must take the drug himself.
While most activists in the United States publicly call only for physician-assisted suicide, they have historically advocated not only physician-assisted suicide, but also euthanasia: This is not surprising: The arguments for physician-assisted suicide are equally arguments for euthanasia.
Neil Gorsuch, currently a federal judge, points out that some contemporary activists fault the movement for not being honest about where its arguments lead. Should not those who are too disabled to kill themselves have their suffering ended by a lethal injection?
And what of those who are too disabled to request that their suffering be ended, such as infants or the demented? Although the Supreme Court has ruled in two unanimous decisions that there is no constitutional right to physician-assisted suicide, three states permit it by statute: Oregon, Washington and Vermont.
Physician-assisted suicide endangers the weak and marginalized in society. Where it has been allowed, safeguards purporting to minimize this risk have proved to be inadequate and have often been watered down or eliminated over time. Physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia are allowed in three European countries—the Netherlands, Belgium and Luxembourg—and Switzerland allows assisted suicide.
The evidence from these jurisdictions, particularly the Netherlands, which has over 30 years of experience, suggests that safeguards to ensure effective control have proved inadequate. In the Netherlands, several official, government-sponsored surveys have disclosed both that in thousands of cases doctors have intentionally administered lethal injections to patients without a request and that in thousands of cases they have failed to report cases to the authorities.
Physician-assisted suicide changes the culture in which medicine is practiced. It corrupts the profession of medicine by permitting the tools of healing to be used as techniques for killing.
Moreover, the option of physician-assisted suicide would provide perverse incentives for insurance providers and the public and private financing of health care. Physician-assisted suicide offers a cheap, quick fix in a world of increasingly scarce health care resources.
Physician-assisted suicide would harm our entire culture, especially our family and intergenerational obligations. The temptation to view elderly or disabled family members as burdens will increase, as will the temptation for those family members to internalize this attitude and view themselves as burdens.
Physician-assisted suicide undermines social solidarity and true compassion. Every human being has intrinsic dignity and immeasurable worth. For our legal system to be coherent and just, the law must respect this dignity in everyone.
It does so by taking all reasonable steps to prevent the innocent, of any age or condition, from being devalued and killed.Legalizing euthanasia or assisted suicide: the illusion of safeguards and controls. J. Pereira, MBChB MSc * Author information In the United States, the states of Oregon and Washington legalized pas in and respectively, but euthanasia remains illegal 3.
Nov 21, · A Progressive Argument Against the Legalization of Physician-Assisted Suicide The debate over physician-assisted suicide is often portrayed as a battle between social or religious conservatives who oppose the practice and liberals or progressives who support it.
A Presbyterian Church position paper on “heroic measures” states that, “Euthanasia, or ‘mercy-killing’ of a patient by a physician or by anyone else, including the patient himself (suicide) is murder.
Essay about Arguments against Physician-assisted suicide Words 5 Pages The United States is a nation founded on freedoms and liberties, giving each citizen the . Assisted Suicide Essay Examples.
total results. A Research on the Subject of Euthanasia 1, words. 3 pages. An Argument Against the Physician Assisted Suicide in the United States. words. 2 pages. An Analysis of the Peter Cinque's Terminal Stages of Diabetes and the Arguments for Euthanasia An Argument in Favor of Legalizing.
On 5/1/12, Gov. Nathan Deal signed a new law prohibiting assisted suicide in GA, replacing a law that had been found unconstitutional.
In a 2/6/12 opinion, the GA Supreme Court overturned t .