Legalization Of Physician Assisted Suicide

Physician-assisted suicide is the act of a physician prescribing a drug to a patient which the patient is able to take on his or her own without the assistance of a medical provider or another person. This drug generally results in unconsciousness within five minutes and death within thirty minutes. Physician-assisted suicide became legal in the state of Oregon on October 27, 1997. From the date of legalization through December 31, 2000, there have been seventy reported cases of people utilizing the law to end their lives. The debate over physician-assisted suicide has never been a simple one. In 48 states the practice remains illegal and the issue has only grown more complicated in recent years. Since 1992 the legalization of this practice
has failed in California, Michigan, Maine and Massachusetts. (https://www.deathwithdignity.org/learn/healthcare-providers/)
A variety of terms have historically been used to describe when a terminally ill patient uses a lethal dose of medication for the purpose of ending his or her life ,or having control over the timing of death. Prior to the passage of the Oregon Death with Dignity Act in 1996, the term most often used was “physician-assisted suicide” (PAS). Those who use this term feel that it is an accurate reflection of the relationship between doctor and patient and refer to the etymological roots of suicide as “auto-killing” or “self-killing.” The use of this term ties the role of the physician to one that aids the patient in killing him or herself. However, implicit in the understanding of the word suicide is the notion of a premature death that is being hastened out of despair, therefore when mental illness impairs judgment, intervention to stop a suicide is ethically warranted because the person seeking suicide has lost his ability to carefully weigh the benefits and burdens of continued life. Generally speaking, persons who are suicidal are treated as though their decision-making capacity is compromised and health care providers often intervene and provide life-sustaining treatments over the objections of the patient.
Therefore, some people, including several national professional organizations, object to the term suicide for the choice of a terminally ill patient to hasten death, because of the associations between suicide and mental illness. They argue that, unlike the patients with impaired judgment who request suicide, terminally ill patients who request medication under the Act have the capacity to make a rational, autonomous decision to end their lives. Concurrent with this public debate, but in many ways separate from it, has been the discussion of assisted suicide and euthanasia in the medical and ethical literature. In this debate, some assert that both assisted suicide and euthanasia are morally wrong and should not be provided, regardless of the circumstances of the particular case. Others hold that assisted suicide or euthanasia are ethically legitimate in rare and exceptional cases, but that professional standards and the law should not be changed to authorize either practice. Finally, some advocate that assisted suicide, or both assisted suicide and euthanasia, should be recognized as legally and morally acceptable options in the care of dying or severely ill patients. The word "euthanasia" derives from Greek, although as used in ancient Greece, the term meant simply "good death," not the practice of killing a person for benevolent motives. In ancient Greece, euthanasia was not practiced, and suicide itself was generally disfavored. Some Greek philosophers, however, argued that suicide would be acceptable under exceptional circumstances. Plato, for example, believed that suicide was generally cowardly and unjust but that it could be an ethically acceptable act if an individual had an immoral and incorrigible character, had committed a disgraceful action, or had lost control over his or her actions due to grief or suffering. (http://www.articlemyriad.com/positive-aspects-physician-assisted-suicide/)
There are two main arguments offered by Christians, and those of other faiths, that advise against an individual seeking suicide, for whatever reason.
Life is a gift from God, and that each individual is its steward. Only God can start a life and only God should be allowed to end one. An individual who commits suicide is committing sin. God does not send us an experience we cannot handle. God supports people in suffering. To actively seek an end to one’s life would represent a lack of trust in God’s
promise.
Of course, there is a significant growing percentage of Agnostics, Atheists, Humanists, secularists, non-Christians and liberal Christians in North America who do not accept these theologically based arguments. They might argue that each person has autonomy over their own life. Persons whose quality of life is nonexistent should have the right to decide to commit suicide and to seek assistance if necessary, to achieve this. Sometimes a terminal illness is so painful that is causes life to be an unbearable burden; death can represent a relief to the intolerable pain. An active political question is whether individuals should be allowed to choose suicide, or whether they should be forced to follow the theological beliefs of the dominant religions. This point is similar to that raised in discussions on choice in abortion and compulsory prayer in public schools. Other religions seem to have very different views on PAS. Such as buddhists, roman catholics and american baptists. The teachings of the Buddha don’t explicitly deal with assisted dying, but the Buddha himself showed tolerance of suicide by monks in two cases. Buddhists are not unanimous in their view of physician-assisted dying. The Japanese Buddhist tradition includes many stories of suicide by monks; suicide was used as a political weapon by Buddhist monks during the Vietnam war. In Buddhism, the way life ends has a profound impact on the way the new, reincarnated life will begin. So a person’s state of mind at the time of death is important, their thoughts should be selfless and enlightened, free of anger, hate or fear. This suggests that suicide is only approved for people who have achieved enlightenment and that the rest of us should avoid it.
The official position of the Roman Catholic Church is strict: killing of a human being, even by an act of omission to eliminate suffering, violates divine law and offends the dignity of the human person. However, many Catholics, particularly in the United States, cite various quotations by Pope Benedict XVI as a source for continued disagreement and controversy regarding controversial issues. Pope Benedict XVI said “Freedom to kill is not a true freedom but a tyranny that reduces the human being into slavery. Scripture, in fact, clearly excludes every form of the kind of self-determination of human existence that is presupposed in the theory and practice of euthanasia. Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion.”
The American Baptists Churches and Southern Baptist Convention differ in their statements regarding assisted dying. The American Baptists have adopted the policy “to advocate within the medical community for increased emphasis on the caring goals of medicine which preserve the dignity and minimize the suffering of the individual and respect personal choice for end of life care.” The Southern Baptists state the practice violates the sanctity of human life. (http://www.pewforum.org/2013/11/21/religious-groups-views-on-end-of-life-issues/)
By making PAS available, some people will be pressured into accepting assistance in dying by their families.
This pressure may sometimes occur in very subtle forms. This is an important argument in favor of strict controls that would confirm that a patient is not being influenced by others. Some feel that the potential for interference is so serious that all assisted suicide should be banned. Some people wish to die because they are suffering from clinical depression. This is another argument in favor of strict controls to confirm that a patient requesting aid in dying is "of sound mind". In an age when total medical funding is restricted, is it ethical to engage in extremely expensive treatment of terminally ill people in order to extend their lives by a few weeks, if it is against their will? The money used in this way is not available for pre-natal care, infant care, etc. where it would save lives, and significantly improve the long-term quality of life for others. Some people argue that patients would be frightened that their physicians might kill them without permission. This is not a valid concern, since a patient would first have to request assistance in dying. If they did not ask for suicide assistance, their doctor would continue to preserve and extend their patients'
lives.
In conclusion, there are many continued discussions regarding PAS. However the viewpoints of patients and their families have a strong influence on the decision for the patient. Some people may agree strongly with PAS and others do not agree with it, and for these reasons this is why this topic is so heavily argued over by government officials, patients, families, physicians, and theologians.