A.P Writ 150 Blog

From my research on this topic I have learned more about the procedures involved in PAS. Patients opting for PAS need to go through extensive levels of mental health screenings and approval processes in order to opt for PAS. Due to the importance of mental health screenings and approval, I am leaning towards allowing PAS. In cases where a patient is facing a terminal illness, it should be allowed as it is the patient's right to autonomy. While families have a right to involvement in the decision, in cases where the patient is sane and capable of making medical decisions, the patient's decision should be prioritized. While PAS may go against a physician's duty to do no harm (maleficence) in the case where a patient is terminally ill, a physician refusing to perform the procedure only delays the inevitable in a sense causing harm to the patient. Without the option of PAS a patient is forced to suffer for a longer period of time causing more harm for the patient. 

 In the medical field, medical professionals face ethical dilemmas where any of the four pillars (autonomy, justice, beneficence, and non-maleficence) can conflict between organizational, personal, and patient goals. One example of an ethical dilemma professionals face deals with physician assisted suicide (PAS). Different from euthanasia, PAS deals with patients that are conscious and aware of their situations and surroundings making the distinctive decision to end their lives. In the case of euthanasia, the patient being euthanized has no knowledge or contribution to the decision being made. PAS is an ethical dilemma because it goes against the pillar of non-maleficence but opposition to PAS could cause more nonconsensual pain and suffering for a patient to possibly lead to the same ending, death of the patient. This removal of the patient's choice of death conflicts with the pillar of autonomy and could also conflict with the patient's justice. In a case where the patient ha...