Assisted suicide
Recently in the newspapers there was a man who killed his wife who was suffering from stage four cancer. In his defense, he said that the wife had asked him to kill her in order for her to stop feeling pain. The wife was no longer responding to pain medication and was in agony for several weeks. This act of mercy killing is called euthanasia.
Euthanasia
Euthanasia is defined as the intentional killing of people in order to relieve them from pain and suffering. Euthanasia is a hotly debated topic. Critics believe that mercy killing is unethical. They believe that the choice over life and death should be left only to God. What critics are unable to explain is what should happen to the people who are beyond medical help. There are people who suffer from chronic illnesses that need that relief from agony and suffering. To some people, those who criticize euthanasia are seen to be inhuman in nature (American Hospital Association, 1995). They would prefer to let someone be in agonizing pain rather than mercifully kill the person in order to give them relief from pain. These critics also claim that euthanasia would reduce the effort that doctors put into their work. They believe that doctors need to come up with more advanced methods of treatment rather than giving up on patients who are beyond conventional treatment. Those that support euthanasia, believe that there is a probability that people have a right to choose whether they live or die. They equate it to the removal of patients from life support. They believe with consent a person can choose whether they want to live or die (Nwafor, 2010).
There are those who believe that the religious community should not be included in the debate for assisted suicide. The religious community does not believe in mercy killing of patients. They normally use the analogy of the good Samaritan. They argue that according to their religious doctrine people the good Samaritan would have killed the man he found instead of helping him. Those who are pro assisted suicide believe that the person who was found was not beyond help. This meant that the person could be saved but what if the person was beyond help. They argue about the time when roman had tried to take back the temple of Jerusalem. The Jews there killed each other after food and water ran out and their situation was beyond help. This situation is viewed in the same light as that of people who are in agony. These people believe that religion should not be factored in the discussion since if it is legalized they will not need to participate in it from their own choice. Therefore, they should allow others who believe in it to have a choice to do what they believe in (Klampfer, 2001).
Recently an elderly woman suffering from painful arthritis decided to suffocate herself using a handmade contraption. It brought to light the fact that there are certain diseases that give a patient excruciating pain. The pain sometimes becomes so overwhelming that even the strongest pain killers do not offer relief. In such cases, there are people who are advocating for assisted suicide by doctors.
Assisted suicide and ethics
Assisted suicide is defined as the act of purposefully ending a person’s life in order to relieve the patient from pain and suffering. Assisted suicide is a hotly debated topic in healthcare (Kenwright, 2011). On the contrary, there are those who view assisted suicide as an unethical practice. They believe that allowing doctors to practice assisted suicide is tantamount to giving them choice over the life and death of their patients. They believe that it is an unethical to give such power to human beings. They also argue that legalization of assisted suicide will bring complacency in the medical field (Weir & medicine, 1992). Doctors will no longer have that motivation to save the life of a patient and in certain cases push for assisted suicide on patients whom they believe cannot be cured. There are also others who believe that some patients will be opting for assisted suicide as a way of escaping their current conditions. An example would be a patient who is amputated and decides to choose assisted suicide instead of rehabilitation (Noble, 2010).
How government can regulate
There are those who believe that regulation by the government is the only way that can allow assisted suicide to be practiced. Government regulation can ensure that assisted suicide is only allowed for people who have serious chronic illnesses like cancer and progressed arthritis. This will limit the number of people who can assess it. Such illnesses do not have any treatment and when they get to the point where pain killers no longer work. A person can be allowed to be given assisted suicide (Capron, 1996).
Moreover, the government can also say that psychiatrist should assess the mental health of a patient to determine whether the patient really needs euthanasia. This will help in determining the actual cases that require euthanasia, and will also help in regulating the use of euthanasia. The only problem that arises is the doctor’s oath that forbids them from killing any patients. This has to be addressed to enable doctors to use euthanasia as a last resort (Kenwright, 2011).
Voluntary suicide
A main aspect of euthanasia is that is must be voluntary and only when the patient is able to request for it. This will help reduce murders that may be done through the practice. This voluntary suicide should only be given to patients who are conscious and in full control of their mental faculties. Voluntary suicide is the situation where a person decides to die on their own accord.This will disqualify anyone who has a mental disorder or any family based suicides (Nwafor, 2010).
For patients who are not conscious the other methods of determination should be used to determine their fate. This involves contracts by the patients before they were in a coma and also spouses determining whether they should be allowed to remain on life support especially when financial matters need to be considered. These are some of the best ways to regulate euthanasia to ensure it is not misused by people (Noble, 2010).
Execution or Assisted Suicide
The debate now is how euthanasia will be performed. Will it be done by lethal injection or suffocation? There has to be a clear cut difference between euthanasia and execution as in the case of death row convicts. Execution is now defined as the ending of a persons life without their choice as a punishment for crimes and atrocities done. There are those who believe that moderate forms of the lethal injection should be used (Hall, 1996).
The critics, on the other hand, started to complain that this will mean that death row convicts are being assisted to commit suicide. They believe that the psychologically some criminals have resigned themselves to death. The legalization of euthanasia means that these criminals are not receiving just punishment. Other workers believe that these criminals are executed in harsh methods while euthanasia is being done in the most humane way possible (Klampfer, 2001).
Furthermore, others complain that criminals do not have a choice in their fate. When a criminal is executed, the potential they had is cut short as a means of punishment. On the other hand, euthanasia is done to someone who is only left with days of pain ahead. In a way, euthanasia is protecting from a future that is not desirable. In a way, this is a merciful killing instead of a punishment (Klampfer, 2001).
Then there are different types of euthanasia. There is the passive type which involves allowing a patient to die from the ailment that they have. There is also the active euthanasia that involves a person actually killing the person (Breo, 1991). Critics believe that there is no difference between the two since being in a position to save a person and not saving the person is quite different. However, in truth this is not the case. There are those patients who normally have signed papers that restrict certain types of treatments such as the use of respirators or non resuscitation. In such cases, doctors are helpless and can do nothing to help (Hall, 1996).
The worrying thing that is there is that even though it is not legal, there are numerous cases where physicians are helping patients to die. It is as easy as telling patients to take an overdose of a certain drug and the patients pass away. This is quite common especially in cases where the patient has inoperable cancer. This means that it is already being practiced illegally, and the only way to make sure that it is monitored is by legalizing and putting strict regulation (Campbell & C, 2010).
Impact of physician aided suicide
Legalization of physician assisted suicide to some will reduce doctor patient trust. Physician aided suicide is defined as the mercy killing of patient by a physican on request of the patient. This is because most patients will be afraid that doctors will no longer be doing their all for the patients. Doctors will now be allowed to let patients die when they feel that they do not have any possibility curing the. The comfort that a doctor will fight to save the life of a patient will no longer be there (Capron, 1996).
The main worry is that doctors are blatantly going against their Hippocratic Oath, and it is worried that with legalization, some of the cases will be deemed un-helpable, and the doctors allow them to die. This is what worries most people, and the main way to get a solution is by creating a field of practitioners whose main practice would be euthanasia. These doctors would have the sufficient psychiatric skills to determine whether there is a genuine need for euthanasia by patients (Capron, 1996).
Assisted suicide will always be a hotly debated issue in many areas. My opinion is that if you put yourself in the shoes of a person who is in constant agonizing pain with no hope of things ever getting better, then you will come to the realization that this will actually be an act of mercy to end the person’s life. This is a lot of power but power requires a lot of control to ensure that it is not misused. Government regulation is the only way to ensure that active euthanasia as well as physician assisted suicide is allowed. This will enable those who require euthanasia be able to access it while protecting the normal patients from misuse by physicians.
Reference
American Hospital Association. (1995). State passes Physician aided suicide: now asks," what have we done?". American Hospital Association , 5-9.
Breo, D. (1991). MD-aided suicide voted down, both sidessay debate to continue. journal of the American Hospital Association , 2899-2900.
Campbell, C. S., & C, J. (2010). HOSPICE AND PHYSICIAN-ASSISTED DEATH : Collaboration, Compliance, and Complicity. Hastings Center Report , 26-35.
Capron, A. (1996). Legalising physician aided death. Cambridge quarterly of healthcare ethics : CQ : the international journal of healthcare ethics committees , 10-23.
Hall, J. K. (1996). Assisted Suicide: Nurse practicioners as providers. Nurse practitioner , 63-66.
Kenwright, S. (2011). Assisted Suicide. Clinical medicine (London, England) , 97-98.
Klampfer, F. (2001). Suicide, euthanasia and human dignity. Acta analytica , 7-34.
Noble, B. (2010). Assisted Suicide. The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners , 132-134.
Nwafor, A. O. (2010). Comparative Perspectives on Euthanasia in Nigeria and Ethiopia. African journal of international and comparative law , 170-191.
Weir, R. F., & medicine, U. o. (1992). The Morality of Physician Assisted suicide. The Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics , 116-126.
