Introduction:
Physician assisted suicide is the act of destroying one’s own life with the assistance of a physician. According to Walker (25), in Oregon based on a terminally ill patient’s request a physician can prescribe a lethal dose of medication to take the life of a patient. To stop the pain what ethical issues surround the termination of the life of a terminally ill patient? Who bears the responsibility of making this decision? Is it the patient, the medical practitioner, or the patient’s relatives? What considerations are required before making the decision to end a patient’s life? These are all questions that arise when the issue of physician-assisted suicide comes up. The practice comes recommended in cases where there is a terminally ill patient and doctors and caregivers have exhausted all medical options to treat the patient. In essence, there is no chance of the patient getting better or improving their current condition. This is especially so in cases where the patient is suffering excessive pain (Jeffrey, 30).
It is important to note that because of these ethical issues, physician assisted suicide has attracted diverse views from a wide range of concerned stakeholders. Governments in some states such as California have passed laws that allow physicians to end the lives of patients with terminal illnesses (Booker, 1). Physician assisted suicide has been discussed in the senate since 1972, a topic that has generated disagreements. Concisely, there are two points of view. There are stakeholders who are against the practice while the opposing group supports the practice. Eighmey also presents a detailed chronology on assisted dying that shows the controversies that surround the topic of discussion.
I am personally against the practice of physician-assisted suicide. A person’s life is sacred and no one should have the privilege of deciding when to end it, not even the concerned individual. Proponents of physician-assisted suicide argue that it helps to ease somebody from pain after all medical interventions have failed and there is no chance of the person recovering. This allows the person who makes the choice to play God, which is undesirable (Carr, 12). Other people against the practice of physician-assisted suicide argue that it erodes and corrupt the culture of medical practice. The medical practice promotes life by helping people to get better. Physician assisted suicide goes against the fundamental beliefs of the medical practice (Anderson, 1). Allowing physicians to assist their patients to die will give them an easy way out.
In turn, this will corrupt the medical practice, as practitioners will know that they will have an easy way out of difficult situations rather than encouraging them to work harder to try to find new cures and solutions to the problems at hand. As pointed out by Anderson (1) doctors take the Hippocratic Oath that aims to protect the sick. The trust in the medical practice will also be eroded, as patients will be aware that doctors will have the power to end their lives. The practice of physician-assisted suicide will also open loopholes for other stakeholders in the medical industry to exploit. Medical care is expensive and in many cases, the costs are borne by health insurance providers. In case of a terminally ill patient, the insurance providers can pressure physicians to end the patient’s life in order for the insurance provider to make savings (Anderson, 1).
The above argument against the practice of physician-assisted suicide is based on the idea that it will corrupt the medical practice fundamental ideals. However, it is important to note that majority of medical practitioners follow the recommended practices and guidelines in their field (Orentlicher, Thaddeus, and Ben, 260). With this fact in mind, it is also correct to assume that majority of the doctors will also follow the recommended guidelines and practices for physician assisted suicide. Therefore, it is up to lawmakers to come up with the correct laws and guidelines for physician-assisted suicide. When these are made, it is correct to assume that most doctors will follow them to the letter. Usually, physician assisted suicide is only recommended in cases of terminally ill patients who are suffering through pain and all medical options have been explored and have failed. The choice is made in order to release the patient from suffering (Orentlicher, Thaddeus, and Ben, 260). The argument that the practice can be exploited for ulterior gains will therefore only apply in cases where a physician decides to end the patient’s life for other reasons than easing their pain.
Another reason cited by the anti-physician assisted suicide camp is that the practice erodes the dignity of human life. This argument is based on the premise that physician assisted suicide violates and individual’s rights to law and dignity (Anderson, 1). Each human life has intrinsic rights and has infinite worth. The law treats all human beings as equal. With this in mind, no other human being should have the power over a human life. This includes the patient implying that they cannot be entrusted with the power to decide when to end a human life. If this was the case, there are groups in society who would feel especially at risk. For instance, disabled people might feel like they are a burden to society and physician assisted suicide could be performed on them. This would lead to a situation where some lives would be seen as more valuable than others would.
While it could be possible that some people in society would take advantage of physician assisted suicide to end the lives of people perceived as a burden to society, it is important to note that medical practitioners operate under a very strict code of conduct. This is the case in all their practices and not just in physician-assisted suicide. Physician assisted suicide will be carried out by a qualified doctor with the permission of the patient or a close family member. Before actually assisting the patient, the doctor will have determined that the condition cannot be reversed and the quality of life of the patient will only get worse. The fundamental guidelines guiding a physician are for the welfare of their patient. It is therefore difficult to find a physician intentionally causing harm to their patient (Jeffrey, 23).
Conclusion:
In conclusion, physician assisted suicide raises many difficult questions. Is it right to let a loved one go through pain after all medical interventions have failed? Is it right to choose to end the life of a loved one to end their suffering? Supporters of physician-assisted suicide argue that before physician assisted suicide is allowed, a number of legal procedures have to take place. It must be determined that the patient is suffering indignity and pain because of their illness. It must also be determined that there is no medical intervention to improve the patient’s condition. This means that physician assisted suicide will not violate the patient’s right to dignity. On the contrary, physician assisted suicide will relieve the patient from their suffering and therefore preserve their dignity. Consequently, it is important to understand that although the practice is intended for good, there will always be a chance that the practice may be abused and no chances can be taken when it comes to the human life (Jeffrey, 25).
Works Cited:
Anderson, Ryant. Physician-Assisted Sucide is Always Wrong. Newsweek. 2015. Web. 16 May 2016
Booker, Brakkton. California Governor Signs Physician-Assisted Suicide Bill into Law. 5 October 2015.
Carr, Mark. Physician-assisted Suicide: Religious Perspectives on Death with Dignity. Wheatmark, Inc., 2009. Print.
Eighmey, George “Chronology of Assisted Dying.” Death with Dignity. 2016. Web. 16 May 2016
Jeffrey, David. Against Physician Assisted Suicide: A Palliative Care Perspective. Oxford: Radcliffe Pub, 2009. Print.
Orentlicher David, Thaddeus Mason Pope, and Ben A. Rich. "Clinical Criteria for Physician Aid in Dying." Journal of palliative medicine (2015). Mary Ann Liebert. Web. 16 May 2016
Walker, Robert M. "Physician-assisted suicide: the legal slippery slope." Cancer Control 8.1 (2001): 25-31. Compassionate Healthcare Network. Web. 16 May 2016
