Introduction
Individuals have many significant views about human life. There are some circumstances that a person love his life, but may choose to end it for some unwanted medical reason. Some individuals may be in a situation that requires an important decision to end someone else’s life, such as a doctor who was requested to end the patient’s life through assisted suicide. In some cases, a family member may need to decide whether or not to continue his relative’s suffering through continuous medication or to end the physical pain by discontinuing the treatment especially during terminal cases. The purpose of this study is to discuss the advantages and disadvantages of assisted suicide on the patients who suffer from a physical pain due to terminal medical condition. Ethical and legal considerations will be provided as to how euthanasia may or may not serve as someone’s basis to end another person’s life. Various ideologies, such as medical ethics and types of euthanasia will also be discussed in order to weigh the arguments between the topic’s advantages and disadvantages. Although both for and against euthanasia arguments claim valid rationale, assisted suicide should not be part of the medical practice as it violates various ethical considerations, especially the respect to human life.
Against Assisted Suicide or Euthanasia
Assisted suicide is no longer a new issue. In fact, ancient Romans and Greeks use this practice to spare individuals from prolonged suffering. This is done to those who belong to high social rank (Bryant 424). In today’s time, physician-assisted suicide is still one of the most debated issues in medicine. It raises different ideas, such as the person who suffers from extreme pain must receive an assisted suicide. In definition, an assisted death may refer to physician-assisted suicide or euthanasia. Although these terminologies may differ from their own meanings, both refers to someone else’s death. Euthanasia can be passive or active, thus, can be voluntary, non-voluntary, or involuntary. No matter what the definition of each term is, the general distinction of these terminologies would be the actual intention to end an individual’s life.
The opposing arguments about the assisted suicide normally revolve around religious, ethical, and moral considerations (Bryant 425). Moreover, there is also the so called slippery slope argument, which discusses the possibility of giving way to active euthanasia if the legalization of assisted suicide has been enacted. There are numerous factors that must be considered, which also stand as the major reasons as to why physician-assisted suicide must be part of the medical practice.
Bryant (425) stated that assisted suicide is a clear violation of the Hippocratic Oath in terms of intentionally ending a person’s life, even if the person requested it. In fact, many medical professionals feel that physician-assisted suicide is morally wrong and unethical. Based on the American Medical Association’s code of ethics, such practice is a clear contradiction of the medical doctor’s role as a healer. Additionally, if an assisted suicide becomes part of the physician’s practice, some patients may lose their trust towards their doctors as the latter will have the power to take the patients’ lives, particularly during a cost-saving incentives for physicians (Bryant 426). That is why; assisted suicide should be prevented and must not be part of any decision-making process during the patient’s terminal condition. It might also break a good physician-patient relationship, especially if the patient is willing to fight for his own life.
Conversely, the ethical and moral considerations in assisted suicide can be as extensive as one may imagine. This practice may place ethical and moral burden on the part of the patient’s family members or friends. For instance, if the doctor or attending physician is not present during the patient’s suicide attempt, he or she might ask a friend or one of his family members to help him out, such as through administration of lethal medication or anything that will accelerate the process of death. In return, the person who participated in the assisted suicide process might suffer from prolonged bereavement process or even suffer from feeling of guilt. In a sense no one has the right to take someone else’s life no matter what the circumstance is. Otherwise there will be a clear violation of moral and ethical ideologies and could also be a matter of violation of any applicable laws.
The issue of assisted suicide holds various topics, which makes it a very controversial medical issue. Although there were various options apart from the physician-assisted suicide, such as the palliative care, many patients may still choose to end their lives due to extreme physical suffering. However, the complicated part lies on the side of the physicians and the patient’s family members due to the presence of ethical, moral, and religious considerations, as to whether such action will rightfully benefit the patient or not.
Furthermore, there are perceived dangers encompassing the assisted suicide. The advocacy of many people regarding the assisted suicide stated that individuals should have the right to die, especially in cases that the person is mentally competent, but terminally ill (Harned 514). The proponents of such practice may have had a good intentions as they do not want to extend any sufferings of the patient. However, instead of empowering the patients who are in terminal illness in making their own decisions, such availability of the assisted suicide may provide pressure to depressed, sick, disabled, or elderly individuals to end their lives. This should not be the ideal way of treating people with terminal illnesses (Golden and Zoanni 21). These patients should experience more care, such as palliative care instead of giving them the option to die. Thus, religious consideration may say that God is the only one who can decide over someone else’s life. In fact, many religious people still believe in the power of miracle that a person could still survive for as long as they have a strong faith.
Harned (514) also added that the issue in assisted suicide is not just limited to critical or terminal illnesses of the patients, nor any specific medical conditions or diseases. One example is that a young individual has a controlled diabetes. However, he is relying on the medical treatments so as to maintain such control over his disease. This case is also viewed as a terminal case, but there is no definite timeline in relation to his death. Therefore, one may not argue that assisted suicide is the answer to end a person’s suffering due to terminal illness.
When it comes to the danger of assisted suicide, there are various cases that needs no physician-assisted suicide. One of which is depression that is normally being underdiagnosed, especially in elderly patients with terminal conditions. Some study shows that a successful treatment of depression results in the termination suicidal ideation, which was evident across 90 percent of the individuals who suffer from terminal or chronic diseases (Harned 515). Therefore, the study represents an idea that is not normally regarded during an event that the patient wishes to die. Thus, it is not the actual disease that made the patient choose death over life, but the depression itself is the main contributor of wrong decision that leads to assisted suicide option.
Another danger the assisted suicide or euthanasia holds is the potential wrong decision of the patient or his family due to the presence of the physical pain, from which the patient is suffering from. Due to the unbearable pain being experienced, it is understandable that one may choose to die than to live with so much physical pain. However, the arguments in favor of assisted suicide or euthanasia may have had a wrong claim that such action is needed to address the presence of such pain. Harned (515) explained that between 95 and 98 percent of the actual pain can be relieved through proper medication. In fact, most cases wherein patients who primarily opt to receive a physician-assisted suicide have changed their minds after the pain management process and successful depression treatment have been conducted. That is why; it is evident that assisted suicide is not the sole solution for patients who are terminally ill, as there could be numbers of alternative solutions that can be given to the patients instead of killing them, regardless if it their own requests.
For Assisted Suicide
Despite many opposing arguments about the assisted suicide, there are still many proponents who claim that such action is an important matter that must be considered. There are two major points of view that support the euthanasia and assisted suicide practices. These arguments are known to be the ethical argument and the pragmatic argument (National Health Service UK, n.p.). The ethical argument states that individuals must have the freedom to choose, which includes their right to have a control over their own life and body. This argument’s emphasis focus one’s personal choice for as long as they do not other individual’s rights.
Relatively, the argument says that no government can create laws that will prevent any person to choose how they die and when they can die. Furthermore, the ethical claims shows that a person choice to die must be provided along with his so they can be able to die with dignity. In fact, the quality of life concept holds an essential reasoning in regards with the ethical argument about the assisted suicide. To simply put, the ethical reasoning suggests that a person’s life must only continue for as long as he feels that such life is worth living. Otherwise, physician-assisted suicide or euthanasia can be chosen for the benefit of the patient’s physical situation.
On the other hand, the pragmatic argument states that euthanasia is already a practice being done widely, which is why, the only thing missing on such practice is the actual regulation or the total legalization of both the assisted suicide and euthanasia. Additionally, the pragmatic argument suggests that medical practices applied in end of life care can be characterized as forms of euthanasia, but with different terminology. For example, the do not attempt cardiopulmonary resuscitation or DNACPR, where the patient requested not to receive any treatment that could save their lives is a form of euthanasia (National Health Service UK, n.p.).
Another practice that has been characterized similarly with euthanasia is the palliative sedation during the palliative care process. This is being applied to persons who are suffering from extreme physical pain, from which no other treatments are effective to reduce such pain. The patient is then put to deep sleep until the patient dies. These arguments emphasizes that terminologies, such as assisted suicide and euthanasia can be both deceiving as they are normally related to someone else’s death, but they are in fact serve as alternative solution in helping the patients who are terminally ill. Thus, it is not about the practice’s intention to kill, which is being highlighted within these practices, but the intention to cease the suffering of the patient. Then again, there are still many other arguments and issues that must be considered when it comes to choosing death to address one’s suffering. Although the above explanations of both palliative sedation and DNACPR stressed out their importance, most medical professionals are still in favor of such practices, especially the ones who are in palliative care.
Counterargument against Assisted Suicide
While there are ethical and pragmatic arguments pertaining to the justification of assisted suicide practice, the arguments that are against such practice outnumbered the benefits of the assisted suicide. In fact, there are more reasons as to why assisted suicide should be part of the medical practice. Primarily, it was stated that the physician-assisted suicide or PAS does not address the patient’s urgent need of dying (bioethics.org.uk). Additionally, assisted suicide, as a part of medical practice, would be a threat against persons with disabilities. That is because such practice only applies to those who are weak and disabled. Another significant argument against the assisted suicide is that it can be an appropriate response to stresses and burdens of life, which should not be an ideal mind setting of every suffering person. Most importantly, assisted suicide undermines the major principles of medical ethics, from which the medical professionals are expected to have the utmost respect to the human life.
Conclusion
The ideology of the assisted suicide proponents may be valid in some ways. They aim to help the people who are suffering from unbearable physical pain, which lead them to decide to end their lives. However, this should not always be the case. Although it is understandable that such pain must be stopped, there are many ways that it can be addressed, such as the application of palliative care. However, in cases that such method is no longer effective, medical professionals must still refrain from doing an assisted suicide as it is a violation of the medical ethics foundation, which mainly aims to save lives of the patients instead of ending it. Therefore, assisted suicide should not be, at any cost, be part of the medical practice as it is a clear violation of ethical, moral, and religious considerations of most of the people.
Works Cited
BioEthics.org.uk. "Eight Reasons not to legalize Physician Assisted Suicide." n.p., Web. <http://bioethics.org.uk/EightReasonsNottoLegalizePAS.pdf>.
Bryant, Clifton D. Handbook of death & dying. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 2003. Print.
Golden, Marilyn, and Tyler Zoanni. "Killing us softly: the dangers of legalizing assisted suicide." Disability and Health Journal 3.1 (2010): 16-30. Print.
Harned, Mary E. "The Dangers of Assisted Suicide - No longer theoretical." Americans United for Life (2012): 513-521. Print.
National Health Service, UK. "Euthanasia and assisted suicide - Arguments - NHS Choices." N.p., 8 Nov. 2014. Web. <http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/Euthanasiaandassistedsuicide/Pages/Arguments.aspx>.
