Self-Reflective — Wisaman101

Core Value 1. My work demonstrates that I used a variety of social and interactive practices that involve recursive stages of exploration, discovery, conceptualization, and development.

After graduating ESL courses and English Composition I, I was still facing some challenges with writing. I have never come up with a topic myself to write to, so the hypothesis approach was extremely difficult to grasp. It took me several weeks of choosing one that meets the professor’s requirements. Then, I have faced a real challenge of exploration, discovery, conceptualization and development. I have found that the Rebuttal Assignment helped me find new points of view and scientific proofs on my topic.  In my research paper topic such as physician assisted suicide  I wrote,  there was a high chance for me to fail to find solid, scientific proof in favor the idea. I believe that all the research I have done to find good unbiased evidence helped me to become a better writer. It also helped me to choose my topic sources properly. For example, I started to rely only on pear review studies and books written by doctors of their practice.

Core Value 2. My work demonstrates that I read critically, and that I planed texts into conversation with one another to create meaning by synthesizing ideas from various discourse communities. 

There was no better example of reading critically and planning texts into conversation with one another than through Stone Money.  Through this exercise I  Professor’s Hodges blog is named Counterintuitive for a reason. There were a lot of times when professor stared us off with a riddle or some exercise that required critical thinking. For our researcher paper we all had to come up with a hypothesis to prove later on. Coming up with my own hypothesis and proving it helped me develop critical thinking mode of thinking in which I could improve the quality of thinking by skillfully analyzing, assessing, and reconstructing it. Another way that professor helped me to think critically is through his comments. I seemed like with him no matter how good of a argument I provide, he would always come up with co-argument that forced me to think even more critically to make sure I cover all the possible readers rhetorical questions.

Core Value 3. My work delfully analyzing, assessing, and reconstructing itmonstrates that I rhetorically analyzed the purpose, audience, and contexts of my own writing and other texts and visual arguments.

There is no better example as Visual Rhetoric. The assessment consisted of 30 seconds short video clip to watch without the sound. The main objective of this exerciser was to be able to describe what we see in every second of the video and then apply rhetoric to that. Furthermore, being able to predict the idea behind the video. All I can say about this exercise that it was not hard to describe but the rhetoric part was a bit confusing at first. Gladly, our professor went over how to do it for a few more times during the semester. I have never done this type of exercise so it was very productive. In my opinion, this exercise helped me to think outside of the box and apply my own take on any situation in writing.

Core Value 4: My work demonstrates that I have met the expectations of academic writing by locating, evaluating, and incorporating illustrations and evidence to support my own ideas and interpretations.

During the semester we had multiple topic categories to write out hypothesis on. One of them was a rebuttal 1000 words paper. I consider this paper one of the strongest ones  that is why I included it in my portfolio. By whiting a rebuttal argument I had to acknowledge the other side of the rebuttal position which is physician assisted suicide is not the moral way go about things. However, by finding proper research material and inflectional studies, I was be able to practice and prefect my rebuttal skills. I am far from being a great writer, but things like that do help to sound persuasive. On the other hand, in order for me to be a better writer in the future, I would want to hear out both sides of defense and see where they come from. Only then I will be able to provide a strong paper for my readers.

Core Value 5. My work demonstrates that I respect my ethical responsibility to represent complex ideas fairly and to the sources of my information with appropriate citation. 

By ethical responsibility I refer to being honest in writing and give proper credits to others. In Annotated Bibliography and a reference portion of my research paper, I was be able show what sources i used and why I used them. To me academic growth starts with differentiation a good material to read and base my writing on between untrustworthy material. In my bibliography I have sections where I show what I have used and what I left off. Overall, I am very satisfied with the work I have done and the knowledge I have accumulated by taking this course with my professor.

Research — Wiseman101

Is Death also a Choice?

Physician-assisted suicide (PAS) as part of euthanasia is one of the oldest points of contention in medical ethics. The original Hippocratic Oath forbids it, and many religions and societal traditions have rejected it since antiquity. In physician-assisted suicide, a suffering or terminally ill patient is aided by a certified health practitioner to get access to a lethal dose that the patient then administers on themselves. If the patient is incapable of doing so, they can request the physician to administer the lethal substance to end the patient’s life. [Physician-assisted dying (PAS) as part of euthanasia is one of the oldest points of contention in medical ethics. The original Hippocratic Oath forbids it, and many religions and societal traditions have rejected it since antiquity. In physician-assisted dying, a suffering or terminally ill patient is aided by a certified health practitioner to get access to a lethal dose that the patient then administers on themselves. If the patient is incapable of doing so, they can request the physician to administer the lethal substance to end the patient’s life.]

It is called physician-assisted because the doctor supports in dying and hastening the death of the patient. In this case, the doctor takes the step knowingly and ready to make the patient die. There is a difference between physician-assisted suicide and the euthanasia. In euthanasia a doctor, assist the patient to die through the administration of a lethal drug while in physician-assisted dying, the doctor deals with a sound mind individual who requests voluntarily to die by requiring a dose of barbiturates that will kill him or her. The state of the art palliative care should be established to treat these people suffering and almost ending their lives. The practice of physician-assisted suicide continues to raise debate as only five American states, a handful of European Countries and Colombia permit some form of doctor-assisted suicide. Even though many governments and organizations do not formally accept physician-assisted suicide as a standard medical practice due to ethical concerns, they should adopt it because it is a show of respect to individual civil liberties as provided by the right of every individual to choose what is best for them without government or societal interference. [The practice of physician-assisted dying continues to raise debate as only five American states, a handful of European Countries and Colombia permit some form of doctor-assisted suicide. Even though many governments and organizations do not formally accept physician-assisted suicide as a standard medical practice due to ethical concerns, they should adopt it because it is a show of respect to individual civil liberties as provided by the right of every individual to choose what is best for them without government or societal interference] Nobody should control how someone should die; therefore, patients should be given a right to die anytime they will.

[The text in purple is reproduced from a Pay-for-Paper site called Course Hero where papers are purchased for college courses. https://www.coursehero.com/file/35361015/Physician-Assisted-Suicide-A-Protection-of-Individual-Civil-Libertiesdocx/ ]

Many states have illegalized physician-assisted suicide. However, there has been a recent flurry of legal implications in this case. Kopelman also claims that, the issue of whether of whether to legalize physician-assisted deaths (PAD) has been on debate for a long time now. In the United States, most of the states have prohibited PAD and terming it as unconstitutional, but it the real sense it constitutional. Individuals should be given their liberty under the constitution.  She says that there have been several attempts to change this law. One of the federal challenging the constitutionality of these prohibitions of PAD includes two Supreme Court cases, Washington vs. Glucksberg and Quill vs. Vacco. After several attempts to legalize PAD failed, then the Death with Dignity Act was passed in Oregon in 1995 and also in Washington state in 2008. These laws allow an individual who wishes to die through physician-assisted practice to do so freely.

There has been a controversy on how to recognize the right of PAD individuals. According to Kopelman, some people associate the word suicide with some mental illness and some irrational behavior. However, these people should be given a right to control their lives because there is a point a patient realizes that death is the only best option for the illness, this is a self-preservation means. That is why when the states legalized this means of dying called is physician-assisted suicide.

There are various reasons why the right to physician-assisted suicide should be recognized. The first reason is patient autonomy. A patient should be guaranteed a right to control any possible circumstances surrounding his death. Respect of the patient is one duty of a doctor. The sole responsibility is to relieve pain the patient is undergoing, physician-assisted suicide is one of the approaches used. This practice was practiced in Oregon whereby over 100 patients obtained a prescription for lethal doses under the law, which was passed in 1997. 850 patients die after taking such doses. Most of these patients had critical and acute diseases like cancer whereby death was the only remaining option. It should also be noted that physician-assisted death is a personal choice; therefore, people should be given their right to choose what suits them. Sometimes the pain in the patient can be too much to contain, therefore when the patient recognizes it is better to die, nobody is supposed to prohibit that, secondly, there is an aspect of mercy. If the pain and suffering the patient is undergoing cannot be relived through the palliative care, then the doctor has the powers to do anything possible to assist the patient to relieve the pan, even if it means hastening patient’s death. Because, honestly, sometimes pain can be unbearable.

Kopelman also points out that, not all medicine can relieve human suffering. The pain and suffering of a dying patient can be too much. The suffering is caused by somatic symptoms like nausea, pain, depression, anxiety and even hopelessness. For most of the patients, when they feel to have the control over their death timing, they get comfort. However, it is reasonable to ask for medicine before opting for death directly. As much as there should be a right for physician-assisted individuals, nobody wants patients to die but have freedom and a right to remain alive and in good health. However, it should be noted that PAD is controlling suffering on terminally ill patients.

There is an unexpected benefit of allowing patients to have a right to physician-assisted suicide. However, it should be noted that the laws and rights for physician-assisted right do intend to kill a patient but to assist in pain relieving. In the study by Boudreau, Donald J., and Margaret A. Somerville, “Physician-assisted Suicide Should Not Be” in this exercise, patients have the opportunity to die with dignity; they experience less trauma and pin when dying. In addition, the patient has all the time to say goodbye to the friends and family members. It should be noted that when the patient requests to die early, he saves the financial burden that the family would have used to treat a disease, which will not get ill at the end of the day. The other most crucial benefit of such a death is that some useful organs like the kidneys can be saved for that patients and be used to save the lives of other patients. In addition, one can imagine if there were not physician-assisted suicide, many people could have committed suicide in a mess and horrifying, traumatic manner.

The other most important reason for legalizing physician-assisted suicide is that it gives patients freedom of choice. The capability to control your mind and body is fundamental to any human being. Boudreau and Somerville agree that, a patient should not be allowed to continue suffering for long in this world when in the real sense there are no hopes for healing members. Death is never enjoyable to witness, but also it is more saddening to see your loved one struggle in pain which will not end any time soon members. Therefore, physician-assisted death helps the terminally ill patient to end his life without necessarily undergoing agony for a long time. Physician-assisted suicide is the best method to determine the right time and manner of a terminally ill patient. This liberty grants the patients alternatives to choose. The constitution provides this liberty and makes it clear for everyone. However, some proponents can argue that physician-assisted suicide should be illegalized since the doctors have no right to determine the right time for a patient’s death.

Although physician-assisted suicide can be regarded as a sound practice, there are valid arguments against its application. According to Margaret Sommerville in her book “Death Talk, Second Edition: The Case Against Euthanasia and Physician-Assisted Suicide,” she claims that the constitution recognizes the right to life, and when life and death are compared, life will take precedence. Allowing physician-assisted dying is a contradiction of the first liberty. [Although physician-assisted suicide can be regarded as a sound practice, there are valid arguments against its application. First, the constitution recognizes the right to life, and when life and death are compared, life will take precedence (Sommerville, 2014). Allowing physician-assisted dying is a contradiction of the first liberty.]

In a literature review by Nicole Steck and Matthias Egger “Euthanasia and assisted suicide in selected European countries and US states: systematic literature review,” they conclude that it is also possible that legislating doctor-assisted suicide will be the first step on a slippery slope that will involve threats to the vulnerable as premature death is enacted as a cheap alternative for palliative care. This is true when one considers that a dose of euthanasia costs an upward of $50 and kidney failure treatment may cost an upward of $89,000 per year in the US. Also, Sommerville points out that, unproductive and poor citizens will be targeted and this, again, goes against the right of every American to access quality healthcare. [It is also possible that legislating doctor-assisted suicide will be the first step on a slippery slope that will involve threats to the vulnerable as premature death is enacted as a cheap alternative for palliative care. This is true when one considers that a dose of euthanasia costs an upward of $50 and kidney failure treatment may cost an upward of $89,000 per year in the US (Steck, Egger, Maessen, Reisch, & Zwahlen, 2013). Unproductive and poor citizens will be targeted and this, again, goes against the right of every American to access quality healthcare.]

For some people, the contention is absolute and moral. Life is sacred and the suffering that comes with it till one dies confers its dignity and consequently, deliberately ending a human life is wrong. Finally, how long will it take before physician-assisted suicide becomes involuntary? When relatives approach a 92-year old man on life support and request them to sign the physician-assisted suicide forms, is that not indirectly violating their rights as they have no choice? [For some people, the contention is absolute and moral. Life is sacred and the suffering that comes . . . . My free preview of the Course Hero document ended here. I did not purchase the paper to continue the comparison.]

According to Bradley Denton and his partner Dr. William Bradley in their “Australian Nursing and Midwifery” journal , the views that physician-assisted dying is immoral and strips human dignity deserves some seriousness but, is not autonomy and liberty critical sources of human dignity as well? The right to choose certainly adds value to human life and people should not take a myopic view of ethics without analyzing the laws that make these ethics possible. In the society we live in where the state and religion are separated, it is queer to support the sanctity of life abstractly by exposing particular individuals to unbearable pain, suffering and indignity that comes from some terminal conditions .Furthermore, evidence from countries and states where physician-assisted suicide has been enacted shows that the slippery slope contention with regard to widespread physician-assisted suicide is a myth. In the Netherlands for example, Gopal in his “Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law,” says that the process of doctor-assisted dying is bureaucratic and highly complex meaning that most applicants are rejected until it is established beyond reasonable doubt that the request is voluntary and will do more good than good. The Netherlands treats physician-assisted suicide as a criminal act if not carried out in the presence of an ethics expert, a legal expert, and the doctor. This implies that strict controls are needed, not blatant rejection, to ensure that this right is protected and not abused.

In the article” Academic Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies” by MSC. Suela Hoxhaj, the argument that life should take precedence over death does not hold water when analyzed from an individual’s rights perspective. Just as people have the right to live with dignity, they also have a right to die with dignity. Medical practice is supposed to alleviate pain and unnecessary suffering in patients. Take the example of a single mother of teenage children having stage four cancer. Undergoing chemotherapy means that her hair falls off even as she consistently vomits while enduring the extreme pain that her children are supposed to watch as they take care of her. Presently, the medical technology we have cannot do any better than chemotherapy and radiotherapy to treat cancer (which generally cannot restore health in stage four cancer) and in the case of this mother, the continuing suffering only robs her of her dignity and those of her children. With physician-assisted suicide, such patients and their families get a right to a dignified end.

According to Sommerville, anti-physician assisted suicide proponents argue that death is a natural process that should not be interfered with. However, doctors have and continue to implicitly exercise the right of dying on the patient’ behalf. Physician-assisted suicide fixes this by recognizing the individual civil liberty of the patient to choose and administer PAS. Doctors normally exercise this right by giving pain-relief in lethal doses or withdrawing treatment. As Steck, Egger, Maessen, Reisch, & Zwahlen notes, this is usually after talking to relatives, and even though doctors are normally investigated for overstepping this mark, they are rarely charged. [Usually this is by withdrawing treatment or administering pain-relief in lethal doses. Often doctors act after talking to patients and their relatives. Occasionally, when doctors overstep the mark, they are investigated, though rarely charged.] Numerous people welcome this fudge given that it lays limits to PAS albeit with no need to articulate the contentious moral choices involved. [Some people welcome this fudge because it establishes limits to doctor-assisted dying without the need to articulate the difficult moral choices this involves.] This is unethical and unworkable given that the explicit choice to die that should be in the hands of a patient is left in the doctor’s hands. It is hypocritical and goes against the individual civil liberties as society pretends to shun PAS while tacitly and subtly allowing it without safeguards. [But this approach is unethical and unworkable. It is unethical because an explicit choice that should lie with the patient is wholly in the hands of a doctor. It is hypocritical because society is pretending to shun doctor-assisted dying while tacitly condoning it without safeguards.] Physician-assisted dying in its openness will fix this practice of deaths through nods and winks that contravenes individual rights. [Most deaths now take place in hospital, under teams of doctors who are working with closer legal and professional oversight. Death by nods and winks is no good.]

Gopal also suggests that, the fear that physician-assisted suicide will be foisted on vulnerable individuals, bullied by rogue doctors, cash-strapped states, panicking relatives, and parsimonious insurers is unfounded. [One fear is that assisted dying will be foisted on vulnerable patients, bullied by rogue doctors, grasping relatives, miserly insurers or a cash-strapped state.] The Oregon experience, where a law allowing PAS has existed since 1997, points to the enhanced recognition of civil liberties. Individuals who choose doctor-assisted dying are in fact insured, well-educated and getting the best palliative care. [Experience in Oregon, which has had a law since 1997, suggests otherwise. Those who choose assisted suicide are in fact well-educated, insured and receiving palliative care.] These individuals are motivated by the desire to maintain their own dignity, pleasure in life, autonomy, and the pain that comes with some conditions. [They are motivated by pain, as well as the desire to preserve their own dignity, autonomy and pleasure in life.]

[The text in blue comes not from Steck, Egger, Maessen, Reisch, & Zwahlen, nor from Gopal, but from the same Economist article not named in the References. ]

Physician-assisted suicide (PAS) can be caused by the fact that there is no available care for the victim patient. According to Ardelt Monika in the handbook of death and dying 1 “Physician-assisted death,”  palliative care strategies can be effectively utilized to ensure that lives of patients are prolonged rather than shortened. It is not something that can be advocated to have the patients’ lives shortened and yet there are care services that can be incorporated to assist patients to recover from acute suffering. There are quality end-of-life programs available through many hospitals. The focus should not be whether to legalize and give patients a right to decide for their lives, but it should be aiming to provide services that guarantee life for patients. The emphasis should be trying to improve hospital care. Ardelt also claims that, there are more than 4000 hospital agencies in the United States, but due to regulations and strict laws and the rigidity nature of the Medicare hospital cover requirements patients to possess a life expectancy of six months or less, many people in the USA fail to access these services. If the trend continues, then definitely there will be more PAS scenarios and people will be committed to fighting for their rights to die through physician-assisted method. In the US, there is excellent terminal care, which is readily available in many hospitals. Every individual in all states has access to hospital care when they require it. This is made available for people of all ages, either the elderly, children, rich, poor and even the mortal people. A significant number of individuals who die in the US die under the care and the umbrella of hospital premises. The fact is not because there is no sufficient care in the US hospitals; it is not because, in America, terminally ill patients are beyond control, no, this is simply because PAS has been legalized by many states. Making the doctors lazy in the administration of required care, hence assisting patients to die early.

It is evident that at some point, PAS can be recommended for the patient who is terminally ill and experiencing acute pain, but still, we need to look at it adverse effect in the healthcare industry. There is a possibility that advocating for PAS will make many physicians to cause more harm than good. According to Margaret Somerville and Dr. Boudreau, Donald, first, physician-assisted suicide is not the core aim of a doctor, professionally. The sole role of a physician is to support the good health of a patient and assist the patient as much as possible to ensure prolonged healthy life. Permitting PAS publicly will make the doctors lazy in the provision of quality palliative care services, which are aimed to support quality life. The involvement of physicians in PAS raises the question of ethical medical practice. The physician should not assume that facilitating the death of a patient is a unique role, it is not something to recommend but to avoid at all cost.

In conclusion, physician-assisted dying is the ultimate protection of individual civil liberties in the ongoing euthanasia debate. Just as people have the right to life, they have a right to autonomy, happiness, and pleasure in life; elements that are guaranteed through the right to choose a dignified death that alleviates unnecessary suffering. Anti-PAS proponents suggest that it will open the doors to a slippery slope of forced death on vulnerable patients, but evidence from Netherlands and Oregon show that this is a myth if strict controls are in place. After all, the right to die for patients has for long been practiced by physicians and relatives on behalf of patients through the withdrawal of medication or prescription of pain medication. Physician-assisted suicide is fixing this subtle illegal practice by placing the right to die in the patient’s hands hence protecting civil liberties.

References

Denton, A., Levett, C., Bradley, S., & Thoma, L. (2016). Death and dignity: Why voluntary euthanasia is a question of choice. Australian Nursing and Midwifery Journal24(6), 18-23.

Gopal, A. A. (2015). Physician-Assisted Suicide: Considering the Evidence, Existential Distress, and an Emerging Role for Psychiatry. Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law43(2), 183-190. Retrieved from http://jaapl.org/content/43/2/183

Hoxhaj, O. (2014). Euthanasia – The Choice between the Right to Life and Human Dignity. Academic Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies3(6), 279-284. doi:10.5901/ajis.2014.v3n6p279

Sommerville, M. A. (2014). Death talk: The case against euthanasia and physician-assisted Suicide (2nd Ed.). Sydney, Australia: McGill-Queen’s Press-MQUP.

Steck, N., Egger, M., Maessen, M., Reisch, T., & Zwahlen, M. (2013). Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide in Selected European Countries and US States. Medical Care51(10), 938-944. doi:10.1097/mlr.0b013e3182a0f427

Boudreau, Donald J., and Margaret A. Somerville. “Physician-assisted Suicide Should Not Be Permitted: option 1.” The New England Journal of Medicine 368.15 (2013): 114-145. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/305322708_Euthanasia_and_assisted_suicide_a_physician’s_and_ethicist’s_perspectives

Kopelman, Loretta M. “Does physician-assisted suicide promote liberty and compassion?.” https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-94-010-9631-7_6

Physician-Assisted Suicide: What are the Issues?. Springer, Dordrecht, 2001. 87-102. https://www.springer.com/us/book/9781402003653

Ardelt, Monika. “Physician-assisted death.” Handbook of death and dying 1 (2003): 424-434. https://med.virginia.edu/wisdom/publications/ardelt/

Boudreau, Donald J., and Margaret A. Somerville. “Physician-assisted Suicide Should Not Be Permitted: option 1.” The New England Journal of Medicine 368.15 (2013): 114-145.

Kopelman, Loretta M. “Does physician-assisted suicide promote liberty and compassion?.”

Definition Rewrite — Wiseman101

Right to Physician-Assisted Suicide

According to Kopelman’s article, “Does physician-assisted suicide promote liberty and compassion?”, physician-assisted suicide is an exercise whereby the doctor helps a patient with the faster means to end his or her life due to overwhelming pain or suffering. A suffering patient requests the physician typically to assist him or her to end his life. It is called physician-assisted because the doctor supports in dying and hastening the death of the patient. In this case, the doctor takes the step knowingly and ready to make the patient die. There is a difference between physician-assisted suicide and the euthanasia. In euthanasia a doctor, assist the patient to die through the administration of a lethal drug while in physician-assisted dying, the doctor deals with a sound mind individual who requests voluntarily to die by requiring a dose of barbiturates that will kill him or her. The state of the art palliative care should be established to treat these people suffering and almost ending their lives. Physician-assisted suicide should be an option when only the last means of treatment has failed to work out (Kopelman, 87). However, even though physician-assisted suicide for some appears unethical, there is a need to recognize the right for a physician-assisted suicide since it gives individual their constitutional liberty. Nobody should control how someone should die; therefore, patients should be given a right to die anytime they will.

Many states have illegalized physician-assisted suicide. However, there has been a recent flurry of legal implications in this case. Kopelman also claims that, the issue of whether of whether to legalize physician-assisted deaths (PAD) has been on debate for a long time now. In the United States, most of the states have prohibited PAD and terming it as unconstitutional, but it the real sense it constitutional. Individuals should be given their liberty under the constitution.  She says that there have been several attempts to change this law. One of the federal challenging the constitutionality of these prohibitions of PAD includes two Supreme Court cases, Washington vs. Glucksberg and Quill vs. Vacco. After several attempts to legalize PAD failed, then the Death with Dignity Act was passed in Oregon in 1995 and also in Washington state in 2008. These laws allow an individual who wishes to die through physician-assisted practice to do so freely.

There has been a controversy on how to recognize the right of PAD individuals. According to Kopelman, some people associate the word suicide with some mental illness and some irrational behavior. However, these people should be given a right to control their lives because there is a point a patient realizes that death is the only best option for the illness, this is a self-preservation means. That is why when the states legalized this means of dying called is physician-assisted suicide.

There are various reasons why the right to physician-assisted suicide should be recognized. The first reason is patient autonomy. A patient should be guaranteed a right to control any possible circumstances surrounding his death. Respect of the patient is one duty of a doctor. The sole responsibility is to relieve pain the patient is undergoing, physician-assisted suicide is one of the approaches used. This practice was practiced in Oregon whereby over 100 patients obtained a prescription for lethal doses under the law, which was passed in 1997. 850 patients die after taking such doses. Most of these patients had critical and acute diseases like cancer whereby death was the only remaining option. It should also be noted that physician-assisted death is a personal choice; therefore, people should be given their right to choose what suits them. Sometimes the pain in the patient can be too much to contain, therefore when the patient recognizes it is better to die, nobody is supposed to prohibit that, secondly, there is an aspect of mercy. If the pain and suffering the patient is undergoing cannot be relived through the palliative care, then the doctor has the powers to do anything possible to assist the patient to relieve the pan, even if it means hastening patient’s death. Because, honestly, sometimes pain can be unbearable.

Kopelman also points out that, not all medicine can relieve human suffering. The pain and suffering of a dying patient can be too much. The suffering is caused by somatic symptoms like nausea, pain, depression, anxiety and even hopelessness. For most of the patients, when they feel to have the control over their death timing, they get comfort. However, it is reasonable to ask for medicine before opting for death directly. As much as there should be a right for physician-assisted individuals, nobody wants patients to die but have freedom and a right to remain alive and in good health. However, it should be noted that PAD is controlling suffering on terminally ill patients.

There is an unexpected benefit of allowing patients to have a right to physician-assisted suicide. However, it should be noted that the laws and rights for physician-assisted right do intend to kill a patient but to assist in pain relieving. In the study by Boudreau, Donald J., and Margaret A. Somerville, “Physician-assisted Suicide Should Not Be” in this exercise, patients have the opportunity to die with dignity; they experience less trauma and pin when dying. In addition, the patient has all the time to say goodbye to the friends and family members. It should be noted that when the patient requests to die early, he saves the financial burden that the family would have used to treat a disease, which will not get ill at the end of the day. The other most crucial benefit of such a death is that some useful organs like the kidneys can be saved for that patients and be used to save the lives of other patients. In addition, one can imagine if there were not physician-assisted suicide, many people could have committed suicide in a mess and horrifying, traumatic manner.

The other most important reason for legalizing physician-assisted suicide is that it gives patients freedom of choice. The capability to control your mind and body is fundamental to any human being. Boudreau and Somerville agree that, a patient should not be allowed to continue suffering for long in this world when in the real sense there are no hopes for healing members. Death is never enjoyable to witness, but also it is more saddening to see your loved one struggle in pain which will not end any time soon members .Therefore, physician-assisted death helps the terminally ill patient to end his life without necessarily undergoing agony for a long time. Physician-assisted suicide is the best method to determine the right time and manner of a terminally ill patient. This liberty grants the patients alternatives to choose. The constitution provides this liberty and makes it clear for everyone. However, some proponents can argue that physician-assisted suicide should be illegalized since the doctors have no right to determine the right time for a patient’s death.

 

 

Works Cited

Boudreau, Donald J., and Margaret A. Somerville. “Physician-assisted Suicide Should Not Be

Permitted: option 1.” The New England Journal of Medicine 368.15 (2013): 114-145.

Kopelman, Loretta M. “Does physician-assisted suicide promote liberty and compassion?.”

Physician-Assisted Suicide: What are the Issues?. Springer, Dordrecht, 2001. 87-102.

Rebuttal Rewrite — Wiseman101

Physician-assisted suicide

Physician-assisted suicide (PAS) as part of euthanasia is one of the oldest points of contention in medical ethics. The original Hippocratic Oath forbids it, and many religions and societal traditions have rejected it since antiquity. In physician-assisted suicide, a suffering or terminally ill patient is aided by a certified health practitioner to get access to a lethal dose that the patient then administers on themselves. If the patient is incapable of doing so, they can request the physician to administer the lethal substance to end the patient’s life. The practice of physician-assisted suicide continues to raise debate as only five American states, a handful of European Countries and Colombia permit some form of doctor-assisted suicide. Even though many governments and organizations do not formally accept physician-assisted suicide as a standard medical practice due to ethical concerns, they should adopt it because it is a show of respect to individual civil liberties as provided by the right of every individual to choose what is best for them without government or societal interference.

Although physician-assisted suicide can be regarded as a sound practice, there are valid arguments against its application. According to Margaret Sommerville in her book “Death Talk, Second Edition: The Case Against Euthanasia and Physician-Assisted Suicide”, she claims that the constitution recognizes the right to life, and when life and death are compared, life will take precedence. Allowing physician-assisted dying is a contradiction of the first liberty. In a literature review by Nicole Steck and Matthias Egger “Euthanasia and assisted suicide in selected European countries and US states: systematic literature review”, they conclude that it is also possible that legislating doctor-assisted suicide will be the first step on a slippery slope that will involve threats to the vulnerable as premature death is enacted as a cheap alternative for palliative care. This is true when one considers that a dose of euthanasia costs an upward of $50 and kidney failure treatment may cost an upward of $89,000 per year in the US. Also, Sommerville points out that, unproductive and poor citizens will be targeted and this, again, goes against the right of every American to access quality healthcare. For some people, the contention is absolute and moral. Life is sacred and the suffering that comes with it till one dies confers its dignity and consequently, deliberately ending a human life is wrong. Finally, how long will it take before physician-assisted suicide becomes involuntary? When relatives approach a 92-year old man on life support and request them to sign the physician-assisted suicide forms, is that not indirectly violating their rights as they have no choice?

According to Bradley Denton and his partner Dr. William Bradley in their “Australian Nursing and Midwifery” journal , the views that physician-assisted dying is immoral and strips human dignity deserves some seriousness but, is not autonomy and liberty critical sources of human dignity as well? The right to choose certainly adds value to human life and people should not take a myopic view of ethics without analyzing the laws that make these ethics possible. In the society we live in where the state and religion are separated, it is queer to support the sanctity of life abstractly by exposing particular individuals to unbearable pain, suffering and indignity that comes from some terminal conditions .Furthermore, evidence from countries and states where physician-assisted suicide has been enacted shows that the slippery slope contention with regard to widespread physician-assisted suicide is a myth. In the Netherlands for example, Gopal in his “Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law”, says that the process of doctor-assisted dying is bureaucratic and highly complex meaning that most applicants are rejected until it is established beyond reasonable doubt that the request is voluntary and will do more good than good. The Netherlands treats physician-assisted suicide as a criminal act if not carried out in the presence of an ethics expert, a legal expert, and the doctor. This implies that strict controls are needed, not blatant rejection, to ensure that this right is protected and not abused.

In the article” Academic Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies” by MSC. Suela Hoxhaj, the argument that life should take precedence over death does not hold water when analyzed from an individual’s rights perspective. Just as people have the right to live with dignity, they also have a right to die with dignity. Medical practice is supposed to alleviate pain and unnecessary suffering in patients. Take the example of a single mother of teenage children having stage four cancer. Undergoing chemotherapy means that her hair falls off even as she consistently vomits while enduring the extreme pain that her children are supposed to watch as they take care of her. Presently, the medical technology we have cannot do any better than chemotherapy and radiotherapy to treat cancer (which generally cannot restore health in stage four cancer) and in the case of this mother, the continuing suffering only robs her of her dignity and those of her children. With physician-assisted suicide, such patients and their families get a right to a dignified end.

According to Sommerville, anti-physician assisted suicide proponents argue that death is a natural process that should not be interfered with. However, doctors have and continue to implicitly exercise the right of dying on the patient’ behalf. Physician-assisted suicide fixes this by recognizing the individual civil liberty of the patient to choose and administer PAS. Doctors normally exercise this right by giving pain-relief in lethal doses or withdrawing treatment. As Steck, Egger, Maessen, Reisch, & Zwahlen notes, this is usually after talking to relatives, and even though doctors are normally investigated for overstepping this mark, they are rarely charged. Numerous people welcome this fudge given that it lays limits to PAS albeit with no need to articulate the contentious moral choices involved. This is unethical and unworkable given that the explicit choice to die that should be in the hands of a patient is left in the doctor’s hands. It is hypocritical and goes against the individual civil liberties as society pretends to shun PAS while tacitly and subtly allowing it without safeguards. Physician-assisted dying in its openness will fix this practice of deaths through nods and winks that contravenes individual rights.

Gopal also suggests that, the fear that physician-assisted suicide will be foisted on vulnerable individuals, bullied by rogue doctors, cash-strapped states, panicking relatives, and parsimonious insurers is unfounded. The Oregon experience, where a law allowing PAS has existed since 1997, points to the enhanced recognition of civil liberties. Individuals who choose doctor-assisted dying are in fact insured, well-educated and getting the best palliative care. These individuals are motivated by the desire to maintain their own dignity, pleasure in life, autonomy, and the pain that comes with some conditions. These are factors that embody the civil liberties promise of most governments around the world.

In conclusion, physician-assisted dying is the ultimate protection of individual civil liberties in the ongoing euthanasia debate. Just as people have the right to life, they have a right to autonomy, happiness, and pleasure in life; elements that are guaranteed through the right to choose a dignified death that alleviates unnecessary suffering. Anti-PAS proponents suggest that it will open the doors to a slippery slope of forced death on vulnerable patients, but evidence from Netherlands and Oregon show that this is a myth if strict controls are in place. After all, the right to die for patients has for long been practiced by physicians and relatives on behalf of patients through the withdrawal of medication or prescription of pain medication. Physician-assisted suicide is fixing this subtle illegal practice by placing the right to die in the patient’s hands hence protecting civil liberties.

 

 

 

References

Denton, A., Levett, C., Bradley, S., & Thoma, L. (2016). Death and dignity: Why voluntary euthanasia is a question of choice. Australian Nursing and Midwifery Journal24(6), 18-23.

Gopal, A. A. (2015). Physician-Assisted Suicide: Considering the Evidence, Existential Distress, and an Emerging Role for Psychiatry. Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law43(2), 183-190. Retrieved from http://jaapl.org/content/43/2/183

Hoxhaj, O. (2014). Euthanasia – The Choice between the Right to Life and Human Dignity. Academic Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies3(6), 279-284. doi:10.5901/ajis.2014.v3n6p279

Sommerville, M. A. (2014). Death talk: The case against euthanasia and physician-assisted Suicide (2nd Ed.). Sydney, Australia: McGill-Queen’s Press-MQUP.

Steck, N., Egger, M., Maessen, M., Reisch, T., & Zwahlen, M. (2013). Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide in Selected European Countries and US States. Medical Care51(10), 938-944. doi:10.1097/mlr.0b013e3182a0f427

Visual Rewrite — Wiseman101

00:00 – 00:01

In the first second we can right the way notice a big white house with the white  picket fence and well maintained green bushes around the house. Also we can see how well the grass is cut on both sides. I can conclude  that people who live there have a good, high paid steady jobs in order to take care of the house. I would consider themselves as upper mid class. This house appears not to be surrounded by other houses.  We could even conclude that this house was constructed by current customer’s house plan. By looking at the shape of this house we could conclude that it was build fairly recent. The big red front door in the center makes us look directly at the center of the shot and not wonder around at first. We can see the side walk with a middle age woman moving towards the entrance. She is wearing a post mail worker uniform that suggests that the current time of the day either early in morning or mid afternoon. She is holding something in her hand, something small to deliver.

00:02 – 00:03

Now we can see that the camera is focused directly at the woman’s face. She is holding several white envelopes. The angle of the camera is shooting above her head, making us concentrate on some image slightly above her, perhaps in the window. Her face impression appears to be surprising. She perhaps sees something that attracts her attention.

00:03 – 00:06

we are looking inside the window from outside point of view. We can see a male’s arm flexing. His arm is fully covered with tattoos. It makes me think that he is a tattoo artist. He also has big muscles which leads to believe he works out and has a very healthy lifestyle. His skin looks young so we could assume he is in his thirties. He is wearing a black tank top, which makes us think that he is plan on staying inside the house. He also has a long black hair going down to his waist. He looks like he could be involved into music industry or, be a part of a local singing band. I would assume he plays an electronic guitar.

00:06 – 00:10

Within 4 seconds of the video we can see the close up of the man’s face. His body moves i side to side in the dancing matter. He is also moving his mouth and it looks like he is singing. He is looking down below him what makes us think that he is playing with someone on the floor  or way shorter than him. He is playing with a child.

00:12

At this second we can see a little girl. She looks like she is about 8 to 11 years old. She also looks like this man, so we could assume his is her father or uncle. She is repeating after him, his dance moves and a song they are singing to each other. She looks very engaged in this playing activity with the man. She looks very happy.

00:15

We finally see them both in the picture. They are standing facing each other and continue on with their dancing. The room looks very clean and colored in pink color. It looks like they are in the living room. We can see the pink, kids size bicycle on the bottom left. It has to belong to a little girl. She likes to ride it and stay very active.

00:21

In this part both a man and a little girl are sitting on the floor. She is holding a plastic keddle toy. She is about to pure some imaginary tea for the man and herself. Now it we can clearly assume that both of them are just having a good time playing with each other.

00:27 – 00:34

The screen picture changes to a black screen with #makeamoment writing on it. Now it all comes together that happy moments are in our control, so we could make those moments of happiness. Make happiness be happy.

Bibliography — Wisemann101

The recognition of the right to physician-assisted suicide is a protection of individual civil liberties

Wellman, Carl. “A Legal Right to Physician-Assisted Suicide Defended.” Social Theory and Practice, vol. 29, no. 1, 2003, pp. 19–38. JSTOR, JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/23559212.

Background: According to Carl, people should be given liberal rights to physician assisted suicide. He states that the rights should be recognized and everyone should be granted the right to choose what should be done to his or her health.

How I sued it: This book enabled me to really understand why there is need for everyone to possess a right to control what to happen to his or her life.

Myers, Richard S. “The Constitutionality of Laws Banning Physician Assisted Suicide.” BYU Journal of Public Law, vol. 31, no. 2, June 2017, pp. 395 408.EBSCOhost, libezp.lib.lsu.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=123908136&site=ehost-live&scope=site.

Background: Richard Meyers discusses some withdrawals form treatment resulted to some establishments to terminate lives of terminally ill patients. Therefore, this did not approve euthanasia. He says there is a thin line between the right to physician assisted suicide and withdrawal form treatment. Myers explains some of the cases of withdrawal from treatments and how it has resulted to some laws banning assisted suicide.

How I used it: This book helped me to understand the present difference between the rights to physician assisted suicide and withdrawal of a patient form treatment. In addition, I have to learn that there are constitutional laws that applies in case laws need to be adhered to regarding assisted suicide.

Loveland, Kristen. “Death and Its Dignities.” New York University Law Review 91.5 (2016): 1279-1315.

Background: Kristen discusses the purpose of dignity and what it means to have a dignified death. She compares the topic with physician-assisted suicide and the aspect of death penalty. The aspect of rights to assisted suicide is compared to death with dignity and if the individual is allowed to die according to her or his wishes, it is made a dignified death. For instance, some patients might be affected form terminally ill diseases like terminally ill cancers; it is respectable to allow these people die in peace.

How I used it: The article made me to understand that there is a dignified death. In this connection. There is need to allow patients who request assisted suicide to be guaranteed the right to do so.

O’Rourke, Mark A., et al. “Reasons to Reject Physician Assisted Suicide/Physician Aid in Dying.” Journal of Oncology Practice, vol. 13, no. 10, Oct. 2017, pp. 683-686. EBSCOhost, doi:10.1200/JOP.2017.021840.

Background: Mark O’Rourke, M. Colleen O’Rourke, and Matthew Hudson worked together to generate some valid ideas and they argued against physician-assisted suicide (PAS). They argue that PAS has an adverse effect for the oncology experts. O’Rourke states that over the past decades, palliative care and hospice care have spread greatly.

How I used it: o used this material to identify various ways in which palliative care can be employed to assist patients to recover from the terminal illness and to reduce any present pain. Very few people can endure terminal pain; therefore, it is possible for hospice care to assist these patients to regain energy.

Gagnon, James D., and Thomas A. Preston. “Autonomy in Physician-Assisted Suicide.” The Hastings Center Report, vol. 30, no. 3, 2000, pp. 4–5. JSTOR, JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/3528036.

Background: Preston and Gagnon argues that there is no autonomy in patients; all that exists is the choice of a patient to have assisted suicide. They argue that instead of asserting a person’s autonomy PAD is an impediment to it, it is a false perception of creating clinical field of doctors. They claim that autonomy can never be absolute.

How I used it: I used this book to learn that indeed autonomy cannot be absolute for patients who seek physician-assisted suicide. We should learn to see physician Assisted Suicide in relation to normal death.

Quill, Timothy E., and Jane Greenlaw. “Physician-assisted death.” (2008).

Background: Quill, Timothy E., and Jane Greenlaw argues that physician assisted suicide is a significant topic, which has been discussed for a long time. Many governments have tried to implement laws that regulate assisted suicide but little efforts have been made. Grant other are arguing that the rights should net while other are advocating for them.

How I used it: I used this book to identify why there are contrary opinions on who should determine when an individual is to die. I also used it to learn various opinions on why some states have legislated assisted suicide laws and others have not.

Ardelt, Monika. “Physician-assisted death.” Handbook of death and dying 1 (2003): 424-434.

Background: According to Monika, there is need for considerable cases to offer physician assisted rights to patients. This case is only applicable and recommended to patients who are terminally ill and does not have any signs of recovering since they are enduring extreme pain, which is unbearable.

How I used it: I used this book to evaluate what is the best solution for patients who are experiencing unbearable pains from terminally ill patients.

Miller, Franklin G., et al. “Regulating physician-assisted death.” (1994): 119-123.

Background: According to Miller, there are medical technology advancements, which can be used to regulate cases of assisted suicide. Therefore, this should not be the only option to deal with patients with terminal illness.

How I used it: Through this article, I am able to identify means used to relieve pains in patients experiencing terminal illness. I have also discovered various ways to regulate PAS.

Veath, R. M. “Physician-Assisted Death.” JAMA-Journal of the American Medical     Association-US Edition 272.12 (1994): 979.

Background: According to Veath, it is important for hospitals to develop means of enabling palliative care to patients with terminal illness. With the incorporation of medical ethics, clinical medicine and medicolegal, experts are working to reduce instances of physician assisted suicide.

How I used it: I used this article to learn various approaches used for palliative care and maintenance of medical ethics.

Koch, Tom, et al. “Physician-Assisted Death.” The Hastings Center Report 33.1 (2003): 5-7.

Background: According to Koch, the right to physician-assisted suicide is recommended under two conditions. One when the idea is voluntary form the patient and secondly when the medical condition of the patient is not controllable. Therefore, if the patient is under pain, he or she can requested prescriptions that can assist in terminating the life easily.

How I used it: I used this article to learn when the right to physician-assisted suicide should be used

Rebuttal — Wisemann101

Physician-assisted suicide is a situation where the physician assists the patient to end his/her life due to an uncontrollable health condition. When a patient is suffering a chronic disease, which cannot be healed at a particular time or cannot heal completely can request a specific prescription of drugs to end his life to avoid much-prolonged pain. In the scenario, the doctor intends to hasten the dying process of the patient knowingly (Copeland, 87). Sometimes the condition is commonly referred to as euthanasia, but it is different. Some laws and regulations have been set to address the issue of whether physician-assisted suicide is valid and lawful or not. There should be some palliative care and trials in all means before assisting the patient to die. This death shortcut should be the last alternative when all sorts of palliative care have failed to bear fruits (Copeland, 87). Some people have argued that patients have a right for physician-assisted death (PAD); they imply that patients should be allowed to decide what they wish to happen to their lives. This essay analyses the causal and effect relationship that will result in the case of granting people the rights to physician-assisted suicide.

Although physician-assisted suicide can be regarded as a sound practice, there are valid arguments against its application. First, the constitution recognizes the right to life, and when life and death are compared, life will take precedence (Sommerville, 2014). Allowing physician-assisted dying is a contradiction of the first liberty. It is also possible that legislating doctor-assisted suicide will be the first step on a slippery slope that will involve threats to the vulnerable as premature death is enacted as a cheap alternative for palliative care. This is true when one considers that a dose of euthanasia costs an upward of $50 and kidney failure treatment may cost an upward of $89,000 per year in the US (Steck, Egger, Maessen, Reisch, & Zwahlen, 2013). Unproductive and poor citizens will be targeted and this, again, goes against the right of every American to access quality healthcare. For some people, the contention is absolute and moral. Life is sacred and the suffering that comes with it till one dies confers its dignity and consequently, deliberately ending a human life is wrong (Sommerville, 2014). Finally, how long will it take before physician-assisted suicide becomes involuntary? When relatives approach a 92-year old man on life support and request them to sign the physician-assisted suicide forms, is that not indirectly violating their rights as they have no choice?

The views that physician-assisted dying is immoral and strips human dignity deserves some seriousness but, isn’t autonomy and liberty critical sources of human dignity as well? The right to choose certainly adds value to human life and people should not take a myopic view of ethics without analyzing the laws that make these ethics possible. In the society we live in where the state and religion are separated, it is queer to support the sanctity of life abstractly by exposing particular individuals to unbearable pain, suffering and indignity that comes from some terminal conditions (Denton, Levett, Bradley, & Thoma, 2016). Furthermore, evidence from countries and states where physician-assisted suicide has been enacted shows that the slippery slope contention with regard to widespread physician-assisted suicide is a myth. In the Netherlands for example, Gopal (2015) says that the process of doctor-assisted dying is bureaucratic and highly complex meaning that most applicants are rejected until it is established beyond reasonable doubt that the request is voluntary and will do more good than good. The Netherlands treats physician-assisted suicide as a criminal act if not carried out in the presence of an ethics expert, a legal expert, and the doctor. This implies that strict controls are needed, not blatant rejection, to ensure that this right is protected and not abused.

The argument that life should take precedence over death does not hold water when analyzed from an individual’s rights perspective. Just as people have the right to live with dignity, they also have a right to die with dignity. Medical practice is supposed to alleviate pain and unnecessary suffering in patients (Hoxhaj, 2014). Take the example of a single mother of teenage children having stage four cancer. Undergoing chemotherapy means that her hair falls off even as she consistently vomits while enduring the extreme pain that her children are supposed to watch as they take care of her. Presently, the medical technology we have cannot do any better than chemotherapy and radiotherapy to treat cancer (which generally cannot restore health in stage four cancer) and in the case of this mother, the continuing suffering only robs her of her dignity and those of her children. With physician-assisted suicide, such patients and their families get a right to a dignified end.

Anti-physician assisted suicide proponents argue that death is a natural process that should not be interfered with (Sommerville, 2014). However, doctors have and continue to implicitly exercise the right of dying on the patient’ behalf. Physician-assisted suicide fixes this by recognizing the individual civil liberty of the patient to choose and administer PAS. Doctors normally exercise this right by giving pain-relief in lethal doses or withdrawing treatment. As Steck, Egger, Maessen, Reisch, & Zwahlen (2013) notes, this is usually after talking to relatives, and even though doctors are normally investigated for overstepping this mark, they are rarely charged. Numerous people welcome this fudge given that it lays limits to PAS albeit with no need to articulate the contentious moral choices involved. This is unethical and unworkable given that the explicit choice to die that should be in the hands of a patient is left in the doctor’s hands. It is hypocritical and goes against the individual civil liberties as society pretends to shun PAS while tacitly and subtly allowing it without safeguards. Physician-assisted dying in its openness will fix this practice of deaths through nods and winks that contravenes individual rights.

The fear that physician-assisted suicide will be foisted on vulnerable individuals, bullied by rogue doctors, cash-strapped states, panicking relatives, and parsimonious insurers is unfounded. The Oregon experience, where a law allowing PAS has existed since 1997, points to the enhanced recognition of civil liberties (Gopal, 2015). Individuals who choose doctor-assisted dying are in fact insured, well-educated and getting the best palliative care. These individuals are motivated by the desire to maintain their own dignity, pleasure in life, autonomy, and the pain that comes with some conditions. These are factors that embody the civil liberties promise of most governments around the world.

In conclusion, physician-assisted dying is the ultimate protection of individual civil liberties in the ongoing euthanasia debate. Just as people have the right to life, they have a right to autonomy, happiness, and pleasure in life; elements that are guaranteed through the right to choose a dignified death that alleviates unnecessary suffering. Anti-PAS proponents suggest that it will open the doors to a slippery slope of forced death on vulnerable patients, but evidence from Netherlands and Oregon show that this is a myth if strict controls are in place. After all, the right to die for patients has for long been practiced by physicians and relatives on behalf of patients through the withdrawal of medication or prescription of pain medication. Physician-assisted suicide is fixing this subtle illegal practice by placing the right to die in the patient’s hands hence protecting civil liberties.

 

 

 

References

Denton, A., Levett, C., Bradley, S., & Thoma, L. (2016). Death and dignity: Why voluntary euthanasia is a question of choice. Australian Nursing and Midwifery Journal24(6), 18-23.

Gopal, A. A. (2015). Physician-Assisted Suicide: Considering the Evidence, Existential Distress, and an Emerging Role for Psychiatry. Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law43(2), 183-190. Retrieved from http://jaapl.org/content/43/2/183

Hoxhaj, O. (2014). Euthanasia – The Choice between the Right to Life and Human Dignity. Academic Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies3(6), 279-284. doi:10.5901/ajis.2014.v3n6p279

Sommerville, M. A. (2014). Death talk: The case against euthanasia and physician-assisted Suicide (2nd Ed.). Sydney, Australia: McGill-Queen’s Press-MQUP.

Steck, N., Egger, M., Maessen, M., Reisch, T., & Zwahlen, M. (2013). Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide in Selected European Countries and US States. Medical Care51(10), 938-944. doi:10.1097/mlr.0b013e3182a0f427

Kopelman, Loretta M. “Does physician-assisted suicide promote liberty and compassion?.”