The Ethical Dilemma of Physician Assisted Suicide There is great debate in this country and worldwide over whether or not terminally ill patients who are experiencing great suffering should have the right to choose death. A deep divide amongst the American public exists on the issue. It is extremely important to reach an ethical decision on whether or not terminally ill patients have this right to choose death, since many may be needlessly suffering, if an ethical solution exists. Clarify Concepts Physician assisted suicide - the ending of a terminally ill patient’s life with the assistance of a physician who will normally supply a drug for the patient to take. Euthanasia – the ending of a terminally ill patient’s life by a third party, normally a physician, to end the pain and suffering of the patient.
The idea for physician assisted suicide is for a medical doctor help someone die who is still alive but desires to terminate their own life due to an impairment or illness which causes suffering upon the individual. The question we must consider is where do we cross the line between suicide and murder. Although suicide or attempted suicide is legal in every state, assisting in a suicide is considered illegal in every state except Oregon. Additionally, the Code of Medical Ethics section 2.211 declares that physician assisted suicide is "fundamentally incompatible with the physician's role as healer, would be difficult or impossible to control, and would pose serious societal risks." There are too many risks associated with physician assisted suicide that managing such a factor would be impossible to control.
In my o... ... middle of paper ... ...illness to die because of the emotional burden that succeeds death. By ending the life of the ill, you can no longer enjoy and spend time with the said loved one before their due time quickly approaches. The bottom line for these believers is that ending a life is playing the God role and even those who don’t believe in God believe nature must take its course. In the end, death is a concrete option for those who are suffering and do not see living life as an option any longer. Many see euthanasia as inhumane and religiously erroneous, but we must view this decision from the eyes of the suffering patient.
¨ Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations is the first religious group to pass in favor of Euthanasia for the terminally ill¨ ( Leading Issue Timelines, 2017, p. 8¨. The terminally ill should have the right to know if they are going to be allowed to end their lives if the fighting gets hard and to unbearable. They do not want to give up just to be on the road of a slow and possibly painful death. ¨ Between physician and patient concerning a request for assisted suicide be witnessed by two adults¨ ( Yale Kamisar, 1998, p. 6). The doctor´s are not going to just inject the patient with the killing drug.
Some claim that it’s the right of a competent, terminally ill person to avoid excruciating pain and embrace a dignified death (Top 10 Pros and Cons, Online). People who are against these practices say that assisting a person in suicide is illegal and a form of murder. Another common concern is that some will choose to die rather than having to pay huge medical bills, worrying that they may leave their family members with unnecessary
This shows that people understand and sympathize with the pain a loved one can feel. It is for the reasons above that I believe that euthanasia should be legalized under the premise that the patient must have terrible quality of life and be suffering from a terminal illness and that a physician will administer the injection under the direction of two other physicians as to stop the possibility of misdiagnoses. I also believe that a person who has been in a coma or on life support but still has no chance of survival also have the right to euthanasia. Euthanasia is a hotly debated topic as it can make someone questions their deepest belief into what they believe is the meaning of living.
My personal belief is that euthanasia and physician assisted suicide are almost always immoral. I believe that a person should embrace their last breath and let it happen naturally not by their own means. If a person's medical condition altered their appearance they should not be looked down upon or stared at. They should be treated with respect and compassion like every other person. I do agree though that there are some instance in which it is appropriate for a person to be taken off of life support or have their life ended.
Physician Assisted Suicide (PAS) and euthanasia raise ethical questions about the medicalisation of death (J Hardwig, 2006; Kavanaugh, 2000) and whether it is worse to kill a patient, or to let them die through omission of treatment (Kavanaugh, 2000). All have the same outcome – the death of the patient – the ethical dilemma arise when considering how the patient’s death occurred (Rachels, 1975). Allowing a patient to die from the cessation of bodily function can be a distressing process and can extend the suffering of that patient (Brock, 1992) However, ending a patient’s life prematurely appears to contradict the medical profession’s objective, namely the Hippocratic Oath, and has further reaching consequence in the community. The increasing ability to prolong life has created an effect termed ‘the medicalisation of death’ (J Hardwig, 2006; Stringer, 2007). In ‘The Hour of Our Death’, Aries (Aries, 1981) discusses the changing conceptions of death as more often a patient is perceived as being surrounded by tubes and machines instead of in more comfortable surroundings when they die.
While euthanasia is illegal in the United States, it is still in practice in many other countries. In this paper I will argue that it is morally wrong for someone to kill a person, even it is on medical terms. Health professionals should aim to improve health and suffering, not kill because providing care becomes overbearing. Many people go into the medical profession in order to help people and improve their daily living. If doctors and nurses are enabling people to terminate their lives simply because they are suffering, it means that these professionals aren’t doing their job correctly.
They believe that legalizing euthanasia would encourage health professionals to abandon their empathy and compassion, and consider ending patients’ lives as just a routine administrative task. Individuals who use this argument often forget that morality is not originated from law, and to think that a doctor would prefer ‘killing off’ patients rather than saving their lives would imply that doctors only try to save patients because they’re getting paid to do so. Individuals who favor this argument also believe that people with complex health needs or those with disabilities might grow distrusting of their doctors, which is another fallacy since it can only be true if we assumed that a doctor sees other humans as customers or job tasks instead of seeing them as human