Branson's Arguments Against Physician Assisted Suicide

Upon being questioned regarding his stance on, “The Right to Die”, Richard Branson stated, “an assisted suicide law would not result in more people dying, but in fewer people suffering.” Though modern medicine is truly a marvel to behold, it has yet to unlock the secrets to curing all of the diseases that plague this world and as a result, a countless number of patients are forced to be imprisoned within a body that is not only withering away, but is the source of much suffering. For patients that have passed a mental health assessment, physician assisted suicide is a viable option for when the agony from a terminal disease becomes too unbearable. The reasoning behind why physician assisted suicide should become law stems from the right of
self autonomy, the minimization of suffering for all involved, and for the fact that their death can be conducted in a way that minimizes the abuse that opponents of physician assisted suicide fear will occur. Autonomy, taken from the Greek word meaning to “self law”, refers to the moral and political concept for a rational individual to form an informed decision without the coercion of another (Segen's Medical Dictionary, 2011) and is one of the main forces propelling the “Right to Die” argument. When it comes to a patient’s rights in a state lacking a “Right to Die” law,they can choose to accept the medication that may or may not extend their life only a handful of months, or, they can deny the medication with the intention of dying sooner, rather than later (or due to the astronomical cost of health care). In either scenario, the patient is held hostage by their disease, no matter what-- it will inevitably deteriorate the body or mind--depending on the disease in question-- until they are either dead or a husk of their former self. For those fearing such an outcome, and with the mental capacity for make an autonomous decision, physician assisted suicide is a much more optimal choice. When it comes to terminal patients, to deny them the right to die may not make the lawmakers murderers-- but, it will make them torturers. Brittany Maynard, an outspoken advocate for the movement, was diagnosed with less than six months to live after discovering that she had stage 4 Glioblastoma. She was the voice heard around the world when she was quoted stating the following in an article for People magazine, “there is not a cell in my body that is suicidal, or that wants to die. I want to live. I wish there was a cure for my disease, but there’s not… My glioblastoma is going to kill me, and that’s out of my control… it’s a terrible, terrible way to die. Being able to choose to go with dignity is less terrifying…” “I considered passing away in hospice care…. but even with palliative medicine, I could develop morphine resistant pain and suffer personality changes… I probably would have suffered in hospice care for weeks or even months and my family would have had to watch that. I did not want this nightmare scenario for my family.” (Maynard, 2014). A terminal disease does not just affect the body physically, it devours the spirit of the patient, and physician assisted suicide can be an option for those wishing to opt out of the suffering. To be a candidate for the “Death With Dignity” option, one must have an illness that will claim their life within six months and pass a mental health screening-- in other words, these are not the wishes of a depressed, suicidal person, but one who would rather take their own life before the disease took them. According to the UK’s National Health Service (NHS), it common for patients to experience feelings of hopelessness, a lack of control and depression. These feelings do not only stem from the diagnosis itself, but are also caused by the inevitable uncertainty that they must live with everyday-- what will the pathogen affect next? What breath will be their last? These questions, in some patients, can stress them even more. This is where “Death With Dignity” laws can step up to the plate. These laws give the diseased person the comfort that they can at least regain some control over the illness that threatens to consume them, and while only slightly more than half of the people who obtain these lethal drugs ever take them (New England Journal of Medicine, 2008), they claim that just having it in their possession gives them some form of comfort. For Crissy Connery, another victim claimed by a terminal Stage 4 cancer, “it wasn’t about taking the easy way out… it was about the power to make her own healthcare decisions. Chrissy didn’t want to suffer like [her stepfather who died in terrible pain due to lung cancer]. She was scared, and would have wanted the option to die on her own terms.” (TimesUnion, 2015) Lethal illnesses do not simply affect the patient; the family and friends of the inflicted person are subjected to emotional strife, as they are forced to watch the person that they love waste away, and while physician-assisted suicide is not necessarily going to take away all of their problems, it does however alleviate some of the pain.
For this case, take the example of George Zygmaniak, a victim of a motorcycle accident, who was left permanently paralyzed from the neck down. He was reported to have begged witnesses at the site of his accident, his physicians and ultimately, his brother to kill him, to “please not leave [him] like this.” Unable to bear hearing his brother’s pleas for mercy, Lester Zygmaniak went home and returned to the hospital with a shotgun smuggled under his clothes. Lester then consented to George’s request and shot his brother point-blank in the head. Here is an extreme example of the mentality a family member experiences when they have a loved one who is either terminally ill, or in this case, permanently in a vegetative state. When backed into extreme emotional corners, it is evident that family members are willing to commit one of the greatest sins, in order to grant the loved one a final act of mercy. According to Harvard’s HelpGuide.org, grief is a family matter, rather than an individual one for the patient, and that the massive amount of stress of watching the person they love deteriorate can lead to psychological trauma such as depression,
guilt and debilitating anxiety that can even manifest in physical symptoms. This means that the terminal illness does not only inflict pain on the patient, but their loved ones as well. For some victims, they can lessen the pain by choosing how and when they die. According to Maynard, she did not want to experience the mental deterioration due to the aggressiveness to her disease, but more importantly, she did not want those close to her, to remember her in such a pathetic state. She wanted to die, “upstairs, in [her] bedroom with [her] husband, mother, stepfather, and [her] best friend in the room. [She] want[ed] to pass peacefully.” However, despite the relief it gives to patients and their families, Dying With Dignity Laws are often met with resistance due to entrenched moral attitudes and unfounded fears.
Some of the most vocal against these laws are the Seniors Against Suicide, who claim that illness is never a reason to commit suicide and that assisted suicide is simply the easy way out of caring for a terminally ill loved one. The issue with this is that, while these members of this organization are more than welcome to have their own opinions, this is no basis to deny someone of their final wishes. The beauty of the Death with Dignity laws is that they are an option for mentally capable adults who fear the debilitating effects of their disease; it is not an enforced rule that applies to all people with six months to live. Not everyone follows the religious guidelines that proclaim suicide to be a sin, nor does everyone have the stamina to allow their infliction to overwhelm their being, but more importantly: no one should be forced to suffer when they do not have to. Now, to this, many would claim that instead of dying, the sufferer could substitute it with palliative care, which would ease the pain. However, this only alleviates a fraction of the problem; morphine does not stop the body from withering away, does not prevent the shadows under their eyes from forming, or eliminate the immense burden from everyone involved. As was mentioned previously, patients can also develop a resistance
or tolerance to the effects of the morphine, rendering this point moot. If someone wishes to end their suffering sooner rather than later, truly, who are we to force them to medicate themselves into oblivion until their inexorable demise?