Physician Assisted Suicide Argumentative Analysis

Physician assisted suicide is a highly controversial bioethical issue that has been increasingly debated in recent years. Advocates of physician assisted suicide argue that it champions patient autonomy and reduces suffering while opposers suggest the benefits outweigh the risks and that there are other acceptable alternatives to the practice. This paper attempts to demonstrate the permissibility of physician assisted suicide as a regulated, medically reliable end-of-life option that can help end the suffering of individuals struggling with terminal illnesses. This will be achieved while still providing a comprehensive view of both opponents’ and supporters’ perspectives on the issue, specifically regarding the nature of the death that comes
Opponents, on the other hand, may argue that there is the potential that an error with the drug used might not provide a quick death, leading to further suffering. However, for the majority of Oregonian patients administered a lethal dose whose time after ingesting the drug until death was known died within half an hour, and time till death ranged from eleven minutes to one hour (Oregon’s Death with Dignity Act-2014). Moreover, during the time since Oregon’s Death With Dignity Act was passed in 1997 until 2014, only six patients of 859 patients total who participated in the program regained consciousness after consuming the prescribed dose of the drug (Oregon’s Death with Dignity Act-2014). Similarly, out of the 40 individuals who received a lethal prescription of secobarbital through Washington’s Death With Dignity Program “between March 5, 2009, and December 31, 2011”, all of them died (Loggers et al. 2013). Thus, in the overwhelming majority of cases, the lethal dose of the drug was highly effective in ensuring the desired death, and so these concerns, while legitimate, are largely