PAS and euthanasia are actions made to end a person’s life to alleviate suffering. Diverse but equally strongly held and well-analyzed ideas on PAS are prevalent among meditative, ethically acceptable people. Nevertheless, the ambition that every patient gets to the dying moments free as possible from the suffering that does not satisfy the patient’s deepest self-evaluation values is at the center of the community and professional debate concerning physician-assisted suicide. Both proponents and critics share a fundamental obligation to propositions of protection, love, regard, and honor; nevertheless, they highlight diverse ethical insights in right-mindedness from those fundamental ideals.
Ideally, PAS is primarily incompatible with the nurse’s function as a healer and would be impractical to control, posing significant societal risks. Instead of inducing assisted suicide, nurses should focus on satisfying the needs of patients in their final hours (Stoller, 2018). According to the code of medical ethics, nurses are expected to adhere to the moral obligations of their practice, such as commitment to the sick and approval for patient decision-making. Physicians, like patients, are informed by a variety of cultural, religious, and philosophical traditions; therefore, they are not entirely defined by their profession. As a result, allowing nurses to assist or not by their professional moral sense is vital to sustaining the medical field’s honesty.
PAS is prohibited in most legal jurisdictions since it involves one person actively causing the death. PAS is, however, allowed in several countries, including Canada and Colombia. Although PAS is not recognized as a right at the federal level in the United States, it is recognized in several states through death with dignity laws. The dignity statutes would disqualify any linked illegalities if the patient consented (Fontalis & Prousali, 2018). As the technological limitations of medicine have become more apparent, Americans appear to be more inclined to discuss end-of-life decision-making. For physicians and acute care institutions, the shift toward recognizing the appropriateness of PAS creates legal and ethical difficulties.
Furthermore, PAS is ethically defensible since physicians are more likely to assist terminally ill patients in reducing their suffering. Despite the enhanced success in the quality of end-of-life care, there will still be incidents of agony, and it is morally appropriate to help patients avoid suffering. According to Minerva and Sandberg (2017), patients who want PAS are going through severe pain that only those who have gone through it may understand. Most bystanders believe that living is desirable, while sufferers consider death as the only way to end their intolerable suffering and find peace. Because it relieves suffering, it is preferable to end people’s lives in pain.
On the other hand, religion is the most outspoken opponent of physician-assisted suicide, citing human sanctity and God as the primary source of life. One of the essential topics that religion addresses are death. All religions provide meaning and explanations for death and its role in human life. Most religions condemn PAS, claiming it is illegal, unethical, and incompatible with human integrity. According to nearly all religions, those who become vulnerable due to illnesses or disabilities deserve special treatment and protection. Proper end-of-life care is far superior to PAS in the spiritual realm. To summarize, religion opposes PAS because it contradicts God’s will because human life is holy or unique.
Finally, PAS has an equal number of fans and detractors. One of the medical challenges that put ethical and moral aspects of society to the test. I agree that PAS is a necessary evil because people must terminate their misery. Furthermore, PAS enables a suffering person to die with dignity and assert their freedom at the end of life. On the other hand, PAS should be limited to a patient’s moral obligation rather than physicians’. It is critical to enact suitable policies to close the gaps in PAS practice.
Fontalis, A., Prousali, E., & Kulkarni, K. (2018). Euthanasia and assisted dying: what is the current position, and what are the key arguments informing the debate?. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 111(11), 407-413. Web.
Minerva, F., & Sandberg, A. (2017). Euthanasia and cryothanasia. Bioethics, 31(7), 526-533. Web.
Stoller, J. K. (2018). Developing physician leaders: a perspective on the rationale, current experience, and needs. Chest, 154(1), 16-20. Web.