Assisted suicide has been a controversial issue not only between physicians in the United States but also between states and the federal government. For example the state of Oregon has been working tireless towards legalizing assisted suicide while the federal government on the other hand has been trying its best to make sure that assisted suicide becomes illegal throughout the United States (Pretzer, 2000, pp.2). Both sides across the divide have very strong arguments and justification of the position they take pertaining to this contentious issue. There are four important points on both sides that justify their stands on the issue of assisted suicide. It is therefore to look at the justification from each side at a time.
Beginning with the supporters of assisted suicide, they argue that assisted suicide saves patients from experiencing a lot of agony and pain due to chronic diseases like cancer. They argue that once patients contract these kinds of diseases they are sure that their lives are coming to an end in a short while. There is no need to let the patient suffer from psychological torture and endless pain. It would be helpful to die before the pains and suffering starts to get worse. This is the most humane thing that physicians can do to their patients according to view of these supporters.
The second major argument that supporters of assisted suicide make is that it helps reduce financial costs that would be incurred if the patient is left to suffer up to the end. Things like lab tests and being accommodated within the hospital always leads to very high bills in the end. Since health care costs have become a very contentious issue in the United States, there is no need to wasting money on patients who will not survive after all yet they are willing to die. Assisted suicide also helps in removing the burden of financial constrains to families of patients that are uninsured. Instead of using money to cater for the patient it is better to allocate these funds to other areas that would help the family after the patient passes away. In addition, instead of insurance companies and government agencies using money on patients that cannot be saved, it is better that patients that are in-savable be allowed to exercise assisted suicide and the money that would have been invested on them be used to help other patients that can be saved.
The third argument is made to justify assisted suicide is that some important organs like Kidneys, hearts and livers can be saved if patients in critical conditions are allowed to be subjected to assisted suicide if they approve of it. These organs can be donated to other people who might in dire need for these organs. If the patients are allowed to suffer to the end, these organs may be completely destroyed ending up useless yet they would be used to keep another patient alive. It is important that the needs of the people who have a higher possibility of living me addressed that focusing our attention of people who we are more than sure are going to die in the near future.
The fourth important argument that is made is favor of assisted suicide is that if patients are not allowed to have physician assisted suicide; patients can conduct suicide in a very terrifying and brutal manner. These traumatic suicides often leave families with a lot grief and sadness due to the means by which they are done. Some of them entail using dangerous weapons like guns or jumping from high heights. Sometimes some of these in-assisted suicides do not actually kill the patients but end up putting them in more critical conditions like breaking of ribs or deformities like deafness or blindness that is attributed to taking poisonous pills. Instead of experiencing all these problems yet the major aim of the patient is to die. It is worthwhile that they conduct assisted suicides whereby physicians will help them die a compassionate and dignified death. Since their families will be notified of their deaths it will not come as shock and therefore there will be minimal grief if any.
Shifting gears to the arguments made by those who oppose assisted suicides, they argue that when doctors assist patients in suicides they go against what is termed to as Hippocratic Oath. This oath states “First, do not harm” (Miles, 2004, pp.189). This oath was initially intended to create a cordial relationship between the patient and doctor so that the patient can trust that the doctor is not going to harm them. Allowing doctors to practice assisted suicides will cause the trust that existed between patients and doctors to weaken. Some patients that would prefer to suffer to the last day may feel insecure if they are under the care of doctors who practice assisted suicides.
The second point that is made against assisted suicide is that insurance companies would use this chance to make their premiums as low as possible. This is because assisted suicides would save insurance companies from covering patients that prefer to commit suicide instead of suffering. Since many families tend to believe what doctors say, many insurance companies are likely to collaborate with doctors in making sure that many patients agree to committing suicide other than suffering to the end. This cartel between doctors and insurance companies would benefit them at the expense of patients who pay for their medical insurance yet they do not benefit from it.
The third argument that is made to oppose assisted suicide is that sometimes doctors and families may lose hopes at a very early stage. This causes patients to conduct assisted suicides very early thereby not creating time to know whether doctors were actually right about their prescriptions or there was actually an error. Patients might lose their chance of surviving in case they decide to commit suicide without determining whether there was an error. Patients may also deny their family and friends a chance to spend more time with them in that they want to die as first as possible before they begin to experience pain and suffering.
Finally, assisted suicide is opposed because some religions argue that this practice does not value human life. For example, some Christian religions argue that it violates the sixth commandment that states that “thou shall not kill” (Bloom, 2006, pp.78). These religions explain that morality should be exercised at all times irrespective of what is the will of the patient. This is the reason many Christian believers are against assisted suicide.
In conclusion, it is clear that the pros of assisted suicide are that it reduces pain and suffering for patients under critical conditions. It reduces financial costs that would be incurred in case patients decide to suffer to the end. Assisted suicide also saves important organs that would help other patients from being destroyed by chronic diseases. In addition assisted suicide results in a calm and compassionate death compared to traumatic deaths that result from suicides that are not assisted. On the other hand, the cons of assisted suicide are that it makes doctors violate the Hippocratic Oath that warns them against harming the patient. Assisted suicide is also likely to create cartels between doctors and insurance companies at the expense of patients who sacrifice a lot to pay their medical insurance. Assisted suicide sometimes causes families and doctors to lose hopes so early yet in some cases doctors make errors. In addition, assisted suicide is highly opposed by religious groups in that they view it as a disrespect of human life. It is therefore important to conclude that both sides of the divide have very strong points to defend their stands and only time is likely to tell which side of the divide will end up successful.
References
Bloom, H. (2006). The Bible. New York: Infobase Publishing.
Miles, S., H. (2004). The Hippocratic Oath and the Ethics of Medicine. New York:
Oxford University Press.
Pretzer, M. (2000, January 25). Assisted suicide Should it be legal. CNN Health,
pp. 1-3. Retrieved from http://articles.cnn.com
