Physician Assisted Suicide Debate
People are afraid of death. It is this innate fear of the end of life causes our subconscious minds to reel at the idea of hastening its arrival. We can only live until we die, so we live, and we live as long as we possibly can, until we die. When presented in this black and white perspective, suicide is nothing short of a crime against nature, a disgrace to the death-avoiding purpose of human existence. Furthermore, the idea of physician-assisted suicide triggers this response to an even greater degree; we hear assisted suicide, and our subconscious screams murder. Here lies the difficulty in understanding the modern debate over physician-assisted suicide with a clear, open mind. Often, it takes a personal experience, perhaps a suffering family member or friend, to fully understand the weight of the right to assisted suicide, and how humane and merciful the practice truly is for those with terminal
…show more content…
illnesses.
For an unaffected, healthy individual, with death painted as a villain by his subconscious, it is easy to raise a gavel against the legalization of assisted suicide. It is easy for this individual to deny the right to end one’s suffering by citing a variety of aged, insignificant arguments like ancient oaths and biased religious teachings, all in defense of the instinct of his subconscious. However, the debate over assisted suicide is greater than this, and must be considered much more deliberately and meticulously. When one considers justice, autonomy, compassion, and all other necessary factors in the modern assisted suicide debate, it is clear that the practice of physician-assisted suicide is merciful and necessary, and must be a provided right to suffering individuals near the
end of life. In its most basic definition, physician-assisted suicide is a terminally ill patient’s self-ingestion a lethal dose of medication that has been prescribed by a physician who is aware of the patient’s intent. Assisted suicide differs in this way from euthanasia since the patient himself administers the life-ending medication, rather than the physician. Since the practice of assisted suicide results in the intentional termination of life, it goes against the religious and moral standards of some. For law-making purposes, this must not stand in the way of a terminally ill, suffering individual’s right to make the personal healthcare decisions that are best for him or her. A Gallup poll in 2015 found that, despite common moral objections, 68% of Americans support the right to physician-assisted suicide for patients with severe pain and incurable diseases (Dugan 2015). More than half of American citizens are able to look past instinctive inhibitions and see how humane and merciful the practice of assisted suicide truly is; however, despite this majority, the practice is only legal in five states today. A small percentage of American citizens can legally decide to end their own suffering in severe, painful circumstances. As voiced by political author Steve Siebold, “When faced with terminal illness and significant suffering, we don't have the legal right to end our pain. For animals, it's humane; for humans, it's a capital offense.” The legal situation surrounding assisted suicide rights is unjust and must change. The successes in the states that have already legalized doctor-assisted suicide demonstrate the beneficial effects of legalization, and are indicative that federal adoption of the law would be a positive step for the country in providing complete patient rights and autonomy. Each state that has legalized the practice has also contrived a set of laws that outline the specific requirements for consideration of a physician-assisted suicide request. These guidelines and protocols stand to ensure that the right to assisted suicide is not abused or taken advantage of when not absolutely necessary. While the protocol differs slightly from state to state, the general steps that a patient must undergo to submit a request and be considered are substantial and extensive. Patients must first confirm eligibility to submit a request; steps toward approval include confirmation that the patient is 18 years or older and able to make informed, competent decisions, that the patient possesses a terminal illness with a prognosis of death within 6 months, as assessed by two or more physicians, and that the patient is able to voluntarily express his or her with to die. A physician must then educate the patient about all of his or her options, including hospice care and pain control, and evaluate the patient’s request by assessing reasons and alternatives. Following eligibility confirmation, patients submit a primary oral request, second oral request, written request before possibly receiving approval (Braddock and Tonelli). These strict qualifications for assisted suicide ensure that patients only exercise the right when it is their best option. Despite the argument of the opposition to assisted-suicide, that its legalization would cause a spike in suicide rates, these strict qualifications have ensured otherwise. In fact, in the three years following passage of the Death with Dignity Act in Washington, only 255 people received lethal prescriptions from a physician. Furthermore, “of those 255 prescriptions...doctors there found that only 60 percent of their patients chose to use their prescription to hasten their death” (Gordon). The passage of “Right to Die” laws in those five U.S. states have seen only positive results, not a spike in suicide rates, but a decrease in suffering of dying patients and an increasingly more compassionate and merciful society. These successful first steps toward federal legalization in the United States are signs of positive progress as a society, as the nation progresses toward fulfilling its legacy of individual liberty and freedom.
illnesses.
For an unaffected, healthy individual, with death painted as a villain by his subconscious, it is easy to raise a gavel against the legalization of assisted suicide. It is easy for this individual to deny the right to end one’s suffering by citing a variety of aged, insignificant arguments like ancient oaths and biased religious teachings, all in defense of the instinct of his subconscious. However, the debate over assisted suicide is greater than this, and must be considered much more deliberately and meticulously. When one considers justice, autonomy, compassion, and all other necessary factors in the modern assisted suicide debate, it is clear that the practice of physician-assisted suicide is merciful and necessary, and must be a provided right to suffering individuals near the
end of life. In its most basic definition, physician-assisted suicide is a terminally ill patient’s self-ingestion a lethal dose of medication that has been prescribed by a physician who is aware of the patient’s intent. Assisted suicide differs in this way from euthanasia since the patient himself administers the life-ending medication, rather than the physician. Since the practice of assisted suicide results in the intentional termination of life, it goes against the religious and moral standards of some. For law-making purposes, this must not stand in the way of a terminally ill, suffering individual’s right to make the personal healthcare decisions that are best for him or her. A Gallup poll in 2015 found that, despite common moral objections, 68% of Americans support the right to physician-assisted suicide for patients with severe pain and incurable diseases (Dugan 2015). More than half of American citizens are able to look past instinctive inhibitions and see how humane and merciful the practice of assisted suicide truly is; however, despite this majority, the practice is only legal in five states today. A small percentage of American citizens can legally decide to end their own suffering in severe, painful circumstances. As voiced by political author Steve Siebold, “When faced with terminal illness and significant suffering, we don't have the legal right to end our pain. For animals, it's humane; for humans, it's a capital offense.” The legal situation surrounding assisted suicide rights is unjust and must change. The successes in the states that have already legalized doctor-assisted suicide demonstrate the beneficial effects of legalization, and are indicative that federal adoption of the law would be a positive step for the country in providing complete patient rights and autonomy. Each state that has legalized the practice has also contrived a set of laws that outline the specific requirements for consideration of a physician-assisted suicide request. These guidelines and protocols stand to ensure that the right to assisted suicide is not abused or taken advantage of when not absolutely necessary. While the protocol differs slightly from state to state, the general steps that a patient must undergo to submit a request and be considered are substantial and extensive. Patients must first confirm eligibility to submit a request; steps toward approval include confirmation that the patient is 18 years or older and able to make informed, competent decisions, that the patient possesses a terminal illness with a prognosis of death within 6 months, as assessed by two or more physicians, and that the patient is able to voluntarily express his or her with to die. A physician must then educate the patient about all of his or her options, including hospice care and pain control, and evaluate the patient’s request by assessing reasons and alternatives. Following eligibility confirmation, patients submit a primary oral request, second oral request, written request before possibly receiving approval (Braddock and Tonelli). These strict qualifications for assisted suicide ensure that patients only exercise the right when it is their best option. Despite the argument of the opposition to assisted-suicide, that its legalization would cause a spike in suicide rates, these strict qualifications have ensured otherwise. In fact, in the three years following passage of the Death with Dignity Act in Washington, only 255 people received lethal prescriptions from a physician. Furthermore, “of those 255 prescriptions...doctors there found that only 60 percent of their patients chose to use their prescription to hasten their death” (Gordon). The passage of “Right to Die” laws in those five U.S. states have seen only positive results, not a spike in suicide rates, but a decrease in suffering of dying patients and an increasingly more compassionate and merciful society. These successful first steps toward federal legalization in the United States are signs of positive progress as a society, as the nation progresses toward fulfilling its legacy of individual liberty and freedom.