Physician assisted suicide is a suicide accomplish with the aid of a physician. In some cases, the term is used interchangeably with euthanasia, which refers to the act of ending the life of an individual suffering from an incurable condition or terminal illness, by using lethal injection or suspending the use of extraordinary medical treatment (Humphrey 3). The important issue is that it is assisted death rather than allowing natural death to take place. Physician assisted suicide is an issue of contention which stirs global conflict with various countries differing strongly on their legal stances towards the issue. Currently, only four regions openly legalize physician-assisted suicide and they include Oregon since 1997, Belgium since 2002, Switzerland since 1941, and Netherlands since 2002. Similarly, there are countries such as Hungary, Russia, England, Republic of Ireland, and Wales that consider physician-assisted suicide as a criminal offense with harsh penalties. Conversely, countries such as Denmark, Germany, Luxemburg, and Finland do not have specific law against physician-assisted suicide, but equally lack proclaiming its legality. Physicians themselves do not agree whether it should be legalized. According to a survey in September 1996 issue of MBA News Review, 44% supported the current law and were against euthanasia while 37% agreed that they were willing to assist end the life of terminally ill patients who had requested for euthanasia and so assisted suicide if the law allowed (Humphrey 4). This essay looks into why physician assisted suicide should be legalized and hoe it could be helpful in today’s society.
The second reason why physician assisted suicide should be legalized is because those in the late stages if their terminal illnesses have dark future ahead of them. This is aggravated due to failure of body organs, gradual decline of their body and the need for artificial support. There are cases where illness slowly de-capacitates their minds, the essence of themselves, and even if not the case, the large amount of medication that they depend on often leaves them incapacitated and delirious. In the real sense, some terminal pains cannot be controlled even under the best treatment. Under these conditions, it would prove more humane to give freedom to such people to choose how they want to end their life, and have the assistance of a physician to die with the dignity they deserve. One particular case was that of Sue Rodriguez who died of Lou Gehrig’s disease. She suffered from the whole ordeal fully aware that all her muscles would fail one by one until the day when, fully conscious, she would choke to death. Despite begging, the courts to allow her choose her mode of death they adamantly refused (Docker 2000).
Opponents argue that only God can give and take life. If this is the case, people should not use medicines and surgeries to prolong life. It therefore makes no sense to assume that medicine can prolong life but cannot terminate life. In such case, legalizing physician-assisted suicide would help a terminally ill patient choose the best way of ending their life. Even though modern palliative care is considerably effective and flexible, and helps prolong quality of life, some terminally ill patients remain in pain throughout the course of their illness. Legalizing physician assisted suicide would help such people choose the manner of their own end through the assistance of a physician.
As it has been the case, suicide is a lonely, desperate act, carried out by an individual in secrecy. As such, legalizing assisted suicide could help families discover the motive behind suicide attempt. The impact of suicide on the family that remains can be so catastrophic that discovering the motive prior to the act could help solve the issue. In some, cases, families might have been unaware how their loved ones feel, and forcing them to confront the issues surrounding their illness may prove useful. This also includes encouraging the patient to stop ending their life. This also makes them become part of the process, which makes them understand the reasons behind their decisions without feeling of recrimination and guilt, and the terminally ill patient can speak openly about their feelings before death.
However, it is worth noting that demanding a family member to take part in such a decision can be dreadful burden. Many may not welcome a relative’s decision to die would be either emotionally estranged or scared by the prospects of taking part in their death. Additionally, physician assisted suicide a new ethical dilemma that the terminally ill person may feel pressured into ending their life by their relatives because they are not able to support them through their illness. It would be difficult even for the most efficiently regulated system to ensure that this does not happen. Yet still, very few family members would like to see their relative die because they do not want to take care of them through their illness.
The guiding principle of medical ethics is that a physician must not engage directly in harming their patient. In today’s society, physicians usually find themselves in compromising position. Good doctors always make strong relationship with their patients and strive at giving them the best care they can afford. However, doctors find it hard to help patients who have lost their ability to live with dignity and expressed strong desire to die. It is a big joke to say that modern medicine can contain pain. While people can contain physical pain, the emotional pain of a slow death can be horrific and demeaning. Physician has the responsibility of addressing the needs of a suffering patient. In such case, the doctor may have helped that patient to die, even though it is not legal. Surveys suggest that fifteen percent of physicians already practice assisted suicide in justifiable occasions. Additionally, opinion polls suggest that more than fifty percent of physicians would like assisted suicide legalized. With such statistics, it would be better to bring the issue into limelight where it can be regulated. This would help reduce cases of abuse of the relationship between a doctor and a patient, and significantly reduce the incidences of involuntary euthanasia. For instance, the current medical regime gives doctors the right to withhold administering treatment for patients, a practice considered much worse than allowing assisted suicide
On the other hand, opponents argue that legalization of assisted suicide would cause abuse rather that control or reduce it. They propose that legalizing the practice would lead to deaths of patients who do not actually wish to die. For instance, they maintain that influential doctors or families, unrestricted by law, would coerce patients to choose death or insurance agencies may pressure doctors to end the life of a patient prematurely to control insurance cost. Other opponents worry, that universal legalization of assisted suicide would culminate into widespread unregulated euthanasia of patients who society deem their lives not worth living.
The legalization of physician-assisted suicide is an extremely complicated, sensitive, and controversial topic. It should be legalized in order to protect the rights of the terminally ill patients who make rational decisions in choosing their death as well as the rights of incompetent or weak patients who do not wish to die.
Works Cited:
Chris Docker, Cases in history, euthanasia.cc, 2000 (accessed 22/12/2012)
Elizabeth Stewart, 'Parents defend assisted suicide of paralysed rugby player', guardian.co.uk, 17 October 2008, web (accessed 22/12/2012).
Humphrey, Derek, ‘Liberty and Death: A manifesto concerning an individual's right to choose to die’, web assistedsuicide.org 1 March 2005, (accessed 22/12/2011)
