TOPIC – Physician Assisted-Suicide 

Prompt: In this activity, you’ll create an annotated bibliography by following the steps below and answering the questions as thoroughly as possible. The questions will prompt you to engage in a conversation with your sources. You will need to follow the steps below three times (for your three different sources).

Before you begin, make sure you have:

• Selected sources from the Opposing Viewpoints database or the Academic Search Ultimate database.
• • Applied the C.R.A.A.P test to the sources to determine if they are credible and reliable. (You can download a copy of The C.R.A.A.P. Test Worksheet. Remember, credible sources should score 35 points or more on the test.)

Specifically, the following critical elements must be addressed:

1. Identify your sources, including author, title, and the database information or website.
2. Summarize your source. (Use the template below.)

   It seems this source is arguing ____________________. This source is using this evidence to support the argument: ____________________.
   A counterargument for one of the provided sources could be: __________________________________.

3. Credibility and Relevance

   Explain the rationale for the credibility of the source by providing supporting evidence. (Use the template below.)

   Personally, I believe the source is doing a (good job/bad job) of supporting its arguments because ____________________.

   Explain the relevance of the source to your argument. (Use the template below.)

   I think this source will be very helpful in supporting my argument because ________________________.

Guidelines for Submission: Your annotations must include at least three sources. Save your work in a Microsoft Word document with double spacing, 12-point Times New Roman font, and one-inch margins. Then, check your writing for errors.

Running head: PHYSICIAN-ASSISTED SUICIDE MIND MAP 1

PHYSICIAN-ASSISTED SUICIDE MIND MAP 2

Physician-Assisted Suicide Mind Map

Main topic: why should it be illegalized?

Sub-points:
1. Doctors must treat patients following Hippocratic Oath proclaims
2. Physicians should practice palliative care instead of using lethal drugs to kill terminally ill patients.

Main topic: Euthanasia is harmful because it doesn’t allow people to see human life as sacred
Sub-topics:
1. The Hippocratic Oath isn’t compatible with Euthanasia
2. Analyze the risk in providing state mandates for or against doctor-assisted suicide.

Physician-assisted suicide

Main topic: consequences of legalizing PAS
Sub-topics:
1. Decreased physician professionalism
2. the possibility of error
3. A diminished physician-patient relationship, and
4. A slippery slope toward the practice of euthanasia.
Main topic: what we can do to make it illegal?
Sub-topics:
1. Practice hospice care that allows people to die with dignity.
2. To relieve pain instead of killing.
3. To help friends, patients and families face up to death.

Keywords: physician-assisted suicide, Hippocratic Oath, lethal-medications, palliative care, hospice care, legalization, and illegalization.

Main topic: Physician-assisted suicide should be illegal

Main Idea 1:
Euthanasia is harmful because it doesn’t allow people to see human life as sacred.
A. The Hippocratic Oath isn’t compatible with Euthanasia.
1. Physician-assisted suicide according to Brueck & Sulmasy (2019) is the point whereby doctors provide a platform for ending the life of a terminally ill patient.
2. The Hippocratic Oath is the standards that doctors are expected to maintain.
B. Euthanasia encourages abuse, allowing doctors to justify murder by framing it in compassionate terms.
1. Laws were written to protect people from killing.
2. The abuse of sedation techniques can be euthanasia.

Main Idea 2:
the quality of life for the past years has been increased by the technological advancement.
A. Before, there were no breakthroughs with the opportunity of saving lives and later history will help save even more lives.
1. Modern respirators and defibrillator are examples of Innovations that been used in medical technology to correct abnormal heartbeats and saving lives (Byock, 2016).
2. Medical response trauma teams are the current recommended executive nursing policies used during the care of terminally ill patients (Knaplund, 2010).
B. Despite these remarkable breakthroughs that help those badly injured, the law becomes vague and allows more opportunities for misinterpretation on defining death.
1. The President’s Commission forced the U.S Supreme Court and healthcare facilities to make tough decisions regarding death.
2. Society views made gradual dying as a medical crisis instead of accepting a natural process of life as a norm.

Main Idea 3:
hospice care is the alternative care used by doctors to reduce the pain of terminally-ill patients instead of ending a life (Elmore, Wright & Paradis, 2018).
A. Hospice is a better alternative care than killing a patient.
1. Some thought dying that it made sense that a man chose to die in his house surrounded by family and made comfortably by hospice doctors and nurses.
2. A physician expressed his findings in Hospice, “You can only fail a patient if you fail to understand and respond to their needs (Brueck & Sulmasy, 2019).
B. Hospice gradually became known to help patients that know they only have a few months to live.
1. Palliative care is given to patients to ease their symptoms and pain.
2. Hospice care is given by doctors for as long time as possible as long as the terminally ill patient is improving (Byock, 2016).
Conclusion
Even though mercy killing remains to be a controversial topic, killing ought to never be legalized. Because of therapeutic advances made by innovation and analysts, they have discovered hospice care as an option for the in critical condition. Life is a valuable blessing. Killing opposes fundamental standards of life. Despite the fact that patients fear death and may see no hope, they should be continually helped to remember the alternatives in contrast to killing.
References
Byock, I. (2016). The case against physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia. The Oxford handbook of ethics at the end of life, 366.
Brueck, M. A., & Sulmasy, D. P. (2019). The genealogy of death: A chronology of US organizations promoting euthanasia and assisted suicide. Palliative & supportive care, 17(5), 604-608.
Elmore, J., Wright, D. K., & Paradis, M. (2018). Nurses’ moral experiences of assisted death: A meta-synthesis of qualitative research. Nursing Ethics, 25(8), 955-972.
Knaplund, K. S. (2010). Montana becomes third our state to allow physician aid in dying. American Bar Association Section of Real Property, Trust, and Estate Law eReport, Forthcoming.

Running head:

OPPOSING VIEWPOINTS

OPPOSING VIEWPOINTS

OPPOSING VIEWPOINTS

Student’s name

Instructor

Course

Date

Opposing Viewpoints

I think that the keywords that I use for my search are related to my topic and sub topic. That is why when I conduct my research; I get result that’s close to my topic of physician-assisted suicide. Some of my source has keywords that are almost exactly like my sub topics. Using the opposing viewpoints data base, I searched “Hippocratic Oath”, “hospice care”, and “physician-assisted suicide legalization.”

Source 1: Title: Hippocratic Oath – the majority are academic journals written within the last five years. There are very few videos and news articles. The journals are stressing the importance of complying with work ethics, standards and policies when treating patients – Author – Bennet, Coleman and Co. Ltd

Source 2: Title: hospice care – there are more news articles than other sources; many are about palliative care talking about patients who are struggling with chronic conditions not about the euthanasia practices. I need to narrow my search – Author, Kumon.

Source 3: Title; physician-assisted suicide legalization – there are 2147 news articles about physician-assisted suicide, many written within the past three years. Most of the articles are talking about the importance of legalizing assisted suicide to end the pain of terminally ill patients rather than talking about the value of human life and the consequences of assisted suicide – Author – Bates College.

Running head: PHYSICIAN-ASSISTED SUICIDE 1

PHYSICIAN-ASSISTED SUICIDE 2

Physician-Assisted Suicide Persuasion

Physician-Assisted Suicide

The major I am pursuing is my Bachelors in Nursing, and with my persuasive essay 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 paper.

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 policy 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.

References

Byock, I. (2016). The case against physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia. The Oxford

handbook of ethics at the end of life, 366.

Brueck, M. A., & Sulmasy, D. P. (2019). The genealogy of death: A chronology of US

organizations promoting euthanasia and assisted suicide. Palliative & supportive care, 17(5), 604-608.

Elmore, J., Wright, D. K., & Paradis, M. (2018). Nurses’ moral experiences of assisted death:

A meta-synthesis of qualitative research. Nursing Ethics, 25(8), 955-972.

Knaplund, K. S. (2010). Montana becomes third our state to allow physician aid in

dying. American Bar Association Section of Real Property, Trust, and Estate Law eReport, Forthcoming.

Feedback for 2-2 Assignment: Writing Notes

I left a lot of notes on the doc and rubric, so I won’t go deep here, but it seems to me if your argument is to take into account that this has been legal in a few states for a while now, it should really focus on what has happened in those states that is a negative consequence of the policy. I was trying to mentally align the concerns you listed with the actual policy, and I wasn’t sure I was getting a compelling reason not to practice this, but a list of concerns ABOUT its practice. Are you arguing for abolishing the practice, or more stringent guidelines and things that doctors should consider before even entertaining this as an option?

Below are the areas of the paper with feedback to be revised.

Writing Plan: Argument

· Describes the argument to be addressed through the essay, including how the argument is derived from major that is being considered or field of work

Writing Plan: Key Points

· Determines key points and rationale that will be helpful in supporting the validity of the argument.

· Mostly aligned with argument, but you mentioned one line about unintended consequences that got me thinking. This is already legal in some places. What exactly are the unintended consequences? I mean, people who want to die, die. Is that it? See note on doc.

Writing Plan: Audience

· Identifies audience and determines potential challenges

· Doctors? Or voters? I was a little confused.