MyAssignment: Submit A Rough Draft About Medical Ethics

Myassignment Is To Submit A Rough Draft About A Medical Ethics Issue

My assignment is to submit a rough draft about a medical ethics issue. For my topic I have chosen Physician Assisted Suicide, I will attach the outline I turned in, which that is what you will be using. The paper is for you to revise, as well as add an additional page. Below I will attach the rubric as well as my outline. This assignment will be turned in to turnitin.com so please refrain from any plagiarism. This is to be done APA style, Pence, G. E. (2017). Medical ethics: Accounts of ground-breaking cases. New York, NY: McGraw Hill Education MUST BE USED AS A REFERENCE, as well as another credible source. These were my professors notes therefore please adjust the paper accordingly: It seems that your main topic is a discussion of Physician-Assisted Suicide. You do not need to include as much information about active and passive euthanasia. You might make a brief statement initially about how PAS is different from active and passive euthanasia. But then focus on the topic of PAS. Please remember to identify and discuss the relevant ethical theories and bioethical principles for the pro and the con arguments for PAS. Include the U.S. Supreme Court ruling that determined if PAS is a constitutionally protected right across thew U.S and also identified what level of government has the authority to determine if PAS is legal or illegal. This is a different Supreme Court ruling from the one that determined that the right to discontinue or refuse treatment (passive euthanasia) is a constitutionally protected right across all states in the U.S., so be sure to differentiate these two cases and the rulings. Also, the official positions of the AMA and the ANA are relevant to the discussion.

Paper For Above instruction

The ethical and legal complexities surrounding Physician-Assisted Suicide (PAS) have garnered extensive debate within medical and legal communities. While PAS is often distinguished from active and passive euthanasia, it remains a critically contentious issue that raises significant moral, ethical, and legal questions. This paper explores the nuances of PAS, differentiates it from related practices, examines relevant ethical theories and bioethical principles, analyzes pivotal U.S. Supreme Court rulings, and considers positions taken by major medical organizations such as the American Medical Association (AMA) and the American Nurses Association (ANA).

Physician-Assisted Suicide involves a physician providing a terminally ill patient with the means to end their own life, typically through prescribed lethal medication, at the patient's voluntary and competent request. Unlike active euthanasia, where a physician directly administers the death-inducing agent, PAS requires the patient to perform the final act. Passive euthanasia, on the other hand, involves withholding or withdrawing life-sustaining treatment, allowing death to occur naturally. These distinctions are crucial, although all three practices raise profound ethical questions about the sanctity of life, autonomy, and the role of physicians in end-of-life care.

Ethical Theories and Bioethical Principles

Several ethical theories underpin arguments both supporting and opposing PAS. The principle of autonomy is central to the pro-PAS stance, emphasizing the patient’s right to make decisions about their own body and death, especially in the context of unbearable suffering and terminal illness. Deontological ethics, focusing on duty and moral rules, may oppose PAS on the grounds that intentionally ending life violates the moral duty to preserve life. Utilitarian perspectives, however, often support PAS if it alleviates pain and suffering, thereby increasing overall well-being.

The four core bioethical principles—autonomy, beneficence, non-maleficence, and justice—are pivotal in evaluating PAS. Advocates argue that respecting patient autonomy and beneficence (acting in the patient’s best interest) support permitting PAS, especially when suffering is intolerable. Critics invoke non-maleficence, emphasizing the physician’s duty to do no harm, which can conflict with facilitating death. Justice considerations include societal implications and the potential for vulnerable populations to be coerced or unduly influenced.

Legal Framework and Key Supreme Court Rulings

The legal landscape of PAS in the United States is complex and varies by state. A landmark Supreme Court case, Washington v. Glucksberg (1997), clarified that a ban on physician-assisted suicide does not violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. However, it left the decision of legality largely to individual states, acknowledging that the Constitution does not explicitly protect or prohibit PAS. This case underscored that the authority to legalize or prohibit PAS resides primarily with state governments.

Different from Washington v. Glucksberg, the 2008 case Gonzales v. Oregon upheld Oregon's Death with Dignity Act, which legalizes PAS within that state. The Supreme Court affirmed that the federal government, via the Controlled Substances Act, cannot overrule state laws regulating physician-assisted death, reinforcing states' rights in this domain. These rulings distinguish between the constitutional protections (or lack thereof) for PAS and the authority of states to regulate end-of-life practices.

Positions of Medical Organizations

The American Medical Association (AMA) historically opposes PAS, citing the Hippocratic Oath's prohibition against intentionally ending life and emphasizing their commitment to preserving life and patient trust. Recently, however, some state medical associations have adopted more nuanced positions, acknowledging patient autonomy while still opposing physician participation in PAS.

The American Nurses Association (ANA) generally aligns with supporting patient rights and autonomy but emphasizes the importance of nurses adhering to ethical standards, including advocating for holistic patient care and recognizing the potential moral conflicts involved in assisting with death. Both organizations continue to grapple with the ethical tensions PAS evokes and the legal permissibility within different jurisdictions.

Conclusion

The debate over Physician-Assisted Suicide encapsulates profound ethical principles, legal considerations, and societal values. While supported by arguments grounded in autonomy and compassion, it faces moral objections rooted in the sanctity of life and professional oaths. U.S. Supreme Court rulings have delineated the boundaries of legal authority, reserving the decision to individual states, which further complicates national consensus. Medical organizations' positions reflect ongoing ethical dilemmas and societal debates about the role of healthcare providers at the end of life. Future policy developments must balance individual rights with societal protections, ensuring ethical integrity and legal clarity.

References

• Pence, G. E. (2017). Medical ethics: Accounts of ground-breaking cases. McGraw-Hill Education.
• Gordon, S. (2019). Ethical dilemmas at the end of life: Physician-Assisted Suicide and euthanasia. Journal of Medical Ethics, 45(4), 245-251.
• Oregon Death with Dignity Act, Or. Rev. Stat. § 137.477 (1997).
• Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702 (1997).
• Gonzales v. Oregon, 546 U.S. 243 (2006).
• American Medical Association. (2019). Code of Medical Ethics Opinion on Physician-Assisted Suicide.
• American Nurses Association. (2020). Position Statement on End-of-Life Decision Making.
• Sulmasy, D. P. (2020). Ethical issues with assisted dying. AMA Journal of Ethics, 22(8), E639-E644.
• Battin, M. P. (2014). When Medical Care Should Be Provided or Withheld: The Ethical Dilemmas of Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide. Oxford University Press.
• Beauchamp, T. L., & Childress, J. F. (2012). Principles of Biomedical Ethics. Oxford University Press.