Physician-Assisted Suicide

By the end of the mind mapping process, you will have an entire page full of keywords related to your research topic.

As you dig into each of the main ideas, add sub-topics and supporting evidence:

After your mind map is complete, look over the results and pick out the most interesting terms that you have generated on the page—these terms are your keywords*.

After you have drawn out your mind map, make a list of your main topic, sub-topics, and supporting evidence

Attached below is the writing notes for Assisted-Physician Suicide

The major I am pursuing is my Bachelors in Nursing, and with my persuasive  I intend to convince healthcare providers in this persuasive essay that physician-assisted suicide (PAS) must be considered illegal and it should not be practiced in any hospital that values human life. I had to tell them while observing the ethical aspects and value of a human soul alongside the biblical worldview that physician assisted suicide is killing regardless of how you stage or justify the act. Doctors, before they start practicing their profession, make the vow of helping patients and help with the progression of medication. On the off chance that a patient is critically ill, they can be made comfortable with drugs like morphine that are deliberately given through IV or orally to help reduce or stop any pain or misery the patient is experiencing.

There are several reasons that support my argument. Some of them are positive while others are negative. But, since the benefits exceed the negative ones, this practice should be dismissed. For one, we ought not, as a rule, give physicians the privilege to help kill their patients. The entire history of medication has been one of improved healing or, in terminal cases, reduced pain; killing, which debases life to the point of liquidation, is the exact inverse of good and mindful medical care (Knaplund, 2010). To legalize suicide along these lines is to weaponize the therapeutic system against the very individuals to which it ought to be generally attentive. A second reason why PAS may sound interesting is that individuals believe that others ought to be put out of their misery in the event that they are in pain. Rather than having the doctors take the easy way out and simply recommend lethal drugs to the patient, I figure physicians should search for better approaches to relieve the pain. Another issue with allowing individuals to be prescribed lethal dosages of medication is that the prognosis the physician gave them could not be right. According to Brueck & Sulmasy (2019), PAS is practiced legally in three states only in the United States. Montana, Washington, and Oregon allow doctors to perform PAS under the guidelines of the Death with Dignity Act. The act contains stringent patient eligibility measures. For example, the Oregon Death with Dignity Act (ODDA) allows doctors to give a lethal dose of the drug to diagnosed fatally sick patients. The patients understand that this medication when taken will take their life within a couple of moments of taking the medication. All together for an individual to acquire this prescription as expressed before in the Death with Dignity Act, they must have a prognosis of a half-year or less, in which a patient would be considered Hospice or on Hospice care. Who is to state that what the physician or doctors said is 100 percent sure? It isn’t, and that ought to be considered. Since we’ve looked at the issues that emerge with PAS and why it ought to be kept illegal, we should look at an alternative in contrast to PAS and how we can keep this illegal.

This essay is meant for the doctors who oppose the fact that physician-assisted suicide should not be declared illegal because they are the key victims of assisting patients in killing themselves. I had to remind them that it is just a few states that legalize mercy killing, and majority of the states are against the act and law is clear that on the off chance that a physician is found guilty of murder indictments. So in addition to the fact that PAS is a shameless act but unlawful. In this manner mercy killing ought not to be allowed because it conflicts with the ethical beliefs that human life is relevant (Elmore, Wright & Paradis, 2018). My challenge is to reaffirm to physicians the moral and ethical aspects of valuing human life even in critical conditions.

To ensure proper completion of this essay, there will be need of using various resources. One of the resources would be data from various healthcare facility cases about physician-assisted suicide. This data according to Brueck & Sulmasy (2019) will assist in giving the proper demographic of the doctors and patients who participates in this illegal act. Another important resource would be conduction of interviews among patients to enable get proper data and the feeling of those who choose mercy killing using lethal drugs by the aid of physicians. This will enable come up with a content loaded.

My goal in this persuasive essay is to assist individuals in separating their private wishes for what we each may would like to have access for ourselves sometime in the not so distant future — an expectation that frequently neglects to see how assisted suicide really works — and, rather, focus on the significant risks we put ourselves into when we legalize PAS as public  in our society today. PAS would have many unintended consequences.

These resources will greatly help in coming up with a valid essay on PAS. For instance, data from various facilities will help in confirming the assertion that People on both sides of the PAS debate care about suffering people and want to prevent intolerable suffering (Byock, 2016). PAS is more rampant to terminally ill patients. This data will thus act as undisputable evidence. The interview conducted among various groups of people will give the patients, and doctors who want the act legalized an opportunity to confess themselves that they support the practice. These resources will help me from a stronger foundation for the essay.

It is of great essentiality to persuade physicians who assist patients to kill themselves when they are terminally ill that it is against human right and it devalues the dignity of a person. Certainly killing and assisted suicide will keep on being popularized and authorized. But, we should oppose this tenacious march of sanitized, commended demise. A civilized culture doesn’t murder the most fragile, most debilitated and generally powerless of its people; we are better than this, regardless of whether barely some states are definitely not.