The Physician Assisted Death Concept

Physician Assisted Death
Name
Course Name
Institution
Date
 
Physician Assisted Death
The last comprehensive public policy report from the federal government on assisted death in Canada was legalized five years ago. Since then, much more reforms have taken place in this particular area. Legislative directives have been presented and improved in a number of provinces and territories. In spite of all these, three essential features are still determining the extent of Physician Assisted Death. First, the decriminalization of assisted death faces more vigorous opposition from the public. Secondly, the issue of decriminalization remains very contagious and polarized. And thirdly, because of this contentiousness, assisted death remains prohibited under the Criminal Code of Canada. Therefore, physician assisted death should not be permitted at all cost change, notwithstanding intent, based on the four ethical principles, autonomy, beneficence, non-maleficence, and justice.
To begin with, physician assisted death should not be permitted because it faces opposition from the general public. According to the National Health Service publication in 2014, Arguments in opposition to physician assisted death have emerged in the form of three positions first, religious contender, second, the slippery-slope theory, and third, medico-ethical arguments. Those who ascribe to various religious faiths have stood firm grounds against physician assisted death. Their opposition gains ground on the belief that perceives human life as a gift from God and is therefore sacred. As a result, life is a unique endowment that no individual has the right whatsoever to take since no man wields the authority to violate this inherent dignity and value of human life. Therefore, this is a fundamental attribute that does not allow a definitive cause of physician assisted death without a determining reason and justification for doing the same.
Conceivably the greatest regularly quoted arguments in antagonism to physician assisted death is the ‘slippery slope’ theory. Subscribers to this theory assert that authorizing physician assisted death to the critically ill induces the descent down a ‘slippery slope,’ whereby the acceptability of physician assisted death is prolonged to those who are incapacitated, mentally sick, or ‘tired’ of life (British Broadcasting Corporation, 2009). Certainly, a threatening tendency resounds amid those who denounce physician assisted death as foreshowing the end of soothing care. Such glumness must not exist yet. For instance, several countries, such as Belgium, Netherlands, and American states, have sign-up statutes decriminalizing physician assisted death. These states, however, have not established any forms legitimizing the slippery-slope theory (Carter v. Canada, 2012). Actually, in evaluating the legality of physician assisted death, Justice “the evidence from other jurisdictions shows that the risks inherent in legally permitted assisted death have not materialized in the manner that may have been predicted (Carter v. Canada, 2012).” As well, after legalization, the number of termination without explicit request, deaths have meaningfully dropped in both jurisdictions, the United States and the Netherlands. This proof aids in allaying reservations of a practical slippery slope (Carter v. Canada, 2012). No doubt, physician assisted death should not be allowed change, notwithstanding intent.
Besides, the slippery slope theory has several objections that speak against physician assisted deaths. Firstly, the competency of physician assisted death is uncertain. Basically, physician assisted death is taking risks in committing a grave wrong. This serious wrong involves determining the person’s competency to be killed, and in most instances, it is not guaranteed that the person to be murdered is incompetent. Furthermore, physician assisted death’s existing laws as guidelines to be followed do not cover for physician mistakes. They cannot protect the patients from wrongful death (Physician Assisted Death 2021 s-term 3, p 24-30). This thus proves that restrictive policies cannot guarantee the effectiveness of the undertaking. More so, when one seeks medical assisted death, there are no safeguards and legal processes in place that are stipulated.  Again, in the event of autonomy, the application of the public policy cannot be counted on to counter wrongful actions in delivering deaths. It is clear beyond reasonable doubts that once the effectiveness of physician assisted deaths cannot be counted on, it should not be permitted at all cost to prevent the wrongful murdering of wrong people.
Also, the casual concept of slippery slope theory instigates that adopting a policy that allows assisted death will inevitably result in unacceptable deaths of the vulnerable. It is critically more important to weigh the cost of physician assisted death based on cause and effect. The legalization of physician assisted death not only degrades the quality of health care but is also a cause for concern. This is majorly owing to the fact that it is most likely to breach the quality of care given in health institutions. The ethics of beneficence requires an action taken to be of good intent to the patient involved (Physician Assisted Death 2021 s-term 3, p 35).  Death certainly has never been a choice. Neither can it be goodwill, not even for the physician, and thus violates the code of ethics in medical practice. This is so since the medics will not develop and maintain skills and knowledge with continual update training, which is considered to source excellence in quality delivery of health care services. The physician assisted deaths also violates the non-maleficence code. The non-maleficence code stipulates that every procedure should not harm the involved patient as well as others in society. Whereas that is the establishment, physician aided killing may always prevail in wrongful undertakings risking harm to the patient and harming the community. Hence, the risks with the effects of physician assisted deaths outweighs its cause, making it rather a dangerous and life-threatening uncertainty that should never be permitted at all cost.
It is also worth noting that medico-ethical arguments maintain that existing foundational medical codes of ethics such as the Hippocratic Oath prohibit taking a patient’s life, no matter the intent. Though, the learned scholar will make out that the most commonly quoted ‘first do no harm’ code does not occur in the Hippocratic Oath. Besides, the current Hippocratic Oath states: “If it is given me to save a life, much thanks. But it may also be within my power to take a life. This awesome responsibility must be faced with great humbleness and awareness of my own fragility,” thus making the argument immaterial under these conditions (Johns Hopkins University, 2015). This primarily occurs in regards to the code of autonomy. Autonomy is where the patient has thoughts, intentions and actions when making choices concerning health care. The deciding process is always accessible without any coaxing so that the patient arrives at an informed decision, showing an understanding of all the perils and reimbursements of the procedure. However, the processes and the situations are always very technical and involving to presume that the patients make informed decisions, thus negating this concept. Hence, the physician assisted death should not be permitted at all cost.
Besides, physician assisted death is a social issue, that in consideration of the fundamental principles of social justice and equity, ethics in public health advances a conservative perspective. Particularly where good health outcomes are championed for, and inadequate health outcomes need to be overshadowed. It, therefore, follows that the public health viewpoint appears a blatant contradiction to physician assisted death. Notably, careful opposition to physician assisted death by public health institutions, whereby the outcome is the complete refutation of service, indisputably establishes a prejudiced barricade to gain access to health care, and consequently infringes several founding principles of public health ethics, including social justice and equitable care (Incardona, N., Bean, S., Reel, K., & Wagner, F, 2016). Additionally, ethical public health principles spread the extra mile to inquire about the ethical brink essential for diligent objection. Such as whether the public health institutions, similar to individual citizens, meticulously object to physician assisted death. And again, whether public health institutions in receipt of constitutionally allocated financial resources have a responsibility to provide access to all the legal health care opt options available to Canadians. It is clear beyond any reasonable doubt that the citizens are openly opposed to the decriminalization of physician assisted death, and the governmentally funded public health providers are mandated to present the patients with the available options but adequate and quality health care that is good outcome-oriented. As a result, it can be conclusively be established that physician assisted death can never be the desired outcome of any ethical based public health institution or the choice of any citizen seeking medical care within Canada and thus should never be permitted.
Physician assisted death is a highly polarized and sensitive topic that would be incredibly beneficial if banned legally. Physician assisted death remains a contentious subject in Canadian society. In 2013, polls revealed that 32% of Canadian citizens were strongly opposed to physician assisted death, with strong support for the motion standing at 29%. (Environics Research Group, 2013). However, in 2015, the Supreme Court of Canada administered a ruling in favour of physician assisted death, quoting: “the prohibition on physician-assisted dying infringes upon the right to life, liberty, and security of the person in a manner that is not in accordance with principles of fundamental justice (Carter v. Canada, 2015).” This ruling, however, went against the code of justice that burdens new and beneficial public health institutions to be reasonably amongst all Canadian citizens. With the opposition religious beliefs and polarized entities in the subject, the matter should not be permitted at all costs in a bid to maintain justice, equity, fairness and respect for life.
In summary, physician assisted death remains a contentious subject in Canadian society. The three essential features are still determining the extent of Physician Assisted Death. Decriminalization of assisted death faces more vigorous opposition from the public. Decriminalization remains very contagious and polarized, and because of this contentiousness, assisted death remains prohibited activities under the Criminal Code of Canada. Therefore, the physician assisted death should not be permitted at all cost change, notwithstanding intent, based on the four ethical principles, autonomy, beneficence, non-maleficence, and justice. This phenomenon should be well established as an act that violates the value, dignity and uniqueness of life, and it is given without any dictates and thus should not be taken at all costs regardless of the intent. And thus, physician assisted death should not be permitted in Canada.
 
 
 

Get Professional Assignment Help Cheaply

Are you busy and do not have time to handle your assignment? Are you scared that your paper will not make the grade? Do you have responsibilities that may hinder you from turning in your assignment on time? Are you tired and can barely handle your assignment? Are your grades inconsistent?
Whichever your reason may is, it is valid! You can get professional academic help from our service at affordable rates. We have a team of professional academic writers who can handle all your assignments.
Our essay writers are graduates with diplomas, bachelor’s, masters, Ph.D., and doctorate degrees in various subjects. The minimum requirement to be an essay writer with our essay writing service is to have a college diploma. When assigning your order, we match the paper subject with the area of specialization of the writer.
Why Choose Our Academic Writing Service?

Plagiarism free papers
Timely delivery
Any deadline
Skilled, Experienced Native English Writers
Subject-relevant academic writer
Adherence to paper instructions
Ability to tackle bulk assignments
Reasonable prices
24/7 Customer Support
Get superb grades consistently

How It Works
1.      Place an order
You fill all the paper instructions in the order form. Make sure you include all the helpful materials so that our academic writers can deliver the perfect paper. It will also help to eliminate unnecessary revisions.
2.      Pay for the order
Proceed to pay for the paper so that it can be assigned to one of our expert academic writers. The paper subject is matched with the writer’s area of specialization.
3.      Track the progress
You communicate with the writer and know about the progress of the paper. The client can ask the writer for drafts of the paper. The client can upload extra material and include additional instructions from the lecturer. Receive a paper.
4.      Download the paper
The paper is sent to your email and uploaded to your personal account. You also get a plagiarism report attached to your paper.

PLACE THIS ORDER OR A SIMILAR ORDER WITH ESSAY SCORES TODAY AND GET AN AMAZING DISCOUNT