Physician Assisted Suicide Research Paper

Christian Rangel
Paul Schmitt
Composition 12 – Holloway
Physician-Assisted Suicide
November 26, 2013
Physician-Assisted Suicide Imagine being terminally ill and being told by a doctor that there is only have six months left to live and that those next six months will wither the body down to nothing through pain and suffering. Physician-assisted suicide could save many Americans from this nightmarish reality that terminally ill patients face today. If physician-assisted suicide or euthanasia was legal in the United States, months of suffering and a loss of dignity and autonomy could be spared. Therefore, physician-assisted suicide, in the style Oregon employs, should be legalized and available to suffering patients across the United
States.
To discuss the legalization of physician-assisted suicide, one must first understand what physician-assisted suicide is. In 1994, Oregon voters passed the controversial Death with Dignity Act which allowed for legal use of physician assisted suicide. Since 1997, 341 people with terminal illnesses participated in physician-assisted suicide. In order to be prescribed to the lethal dose, one must be at least an eighteen year old resident of Oregon, diagnosed with a terminal illness with a prognosis of 6 months, must be able to make their own decisions about health-care, must have their mental health evaluated by two separate physicians who agree upon the diagnosis, must make two requests separated by fifteen days, and the prescribing physician must inform the patient of alternatives to physician-assisted suicide (Friedman 36-37). There are several arguments surrounding physician-assisted suicide one of which debates if it’s moral.
Despite the controversy surrounding the issue, physician-assisted suicide is ethical.
Some would base their argument off their religious beliefs that suicide in general is immoral. However, the United States government tends not to make religion a factor when making law, for example: it is illegal to murder someone else, both religiously and legislatively, but we still go to war if need be. Suicide is often frowned upon within the texts of most religions and it is even a felony in some states. Physician-assisted suicide should not be misconstrued to fall under these descriptions, as it would only be for the terminally ill, a demographic which will die regardless of external influences and factors. Some people would argue that physician assisted suicide goes against the Hippocratic Oath which is an ancient oath doctors live by in their practices that states everything they do is to the benefit of their patients (Friedman 18-22). However, Doctor and physician-assisted suicide activist Jack Kevorkian stated that the Oath was never administered nor enforced during his learning at his medical school (Opposing Viewpoints
(p48-54). Jack Kevorkian is the most famous advocate for legalized physician-assisted suicide.
He nearly single-handedly started the discussion about physician-assisted suicide by being the first physician to actually begin carrying out the act and assisting the terminally ill to die. One of the most commonly cited counterarguments against physician-assisted suicide is the claim that it is a violation of the Hippocratic Oath, and that by assisting one in taking their own life, a doctor is breaking the ancient and sacred code of their profession. This argument could have merit, were it not for the fact that the Hippocratic Oath itself is not always administered to doctors, and there is no system in place for enforcement of the “Oath”(Opposing Viewpoints p48-54). At no point in medical school is the Hippocratic Oath required to be administered by the school, nor taken by every graduating doctor. Even if participating in an assisted-suicide were in violation of the Oath, the Oath itself is absolutely not a benchmark, nor a law for the doctor to follow. The Oath states that the doctor will “do no harm” with his work, many take this as an example as to why physician assisted suicide is immoral. They believe that if the doctor is giving the patient something that can and will take his life, that he is harming the patient. This belief is false, in no way is the doctor forcing the patient’s hand, and at no point in the entire process is the patient doing anything without being informed
properly and aware of the action and consequences. In fact, a doctor is causing more harm by refusing to assist a terminal patient commit suicide, by prolonging their suffering and condemning them to a shamble of a life with no hope or chance of autonomy.
Another argument that ensues is if physicians should assist in suicide.

Physicians should assist a patient carry out their fate because it is safer andpp less stressful on families.
Another down fall of terminally patients is paying for expensive medical practices even though the end result is evident.

Hospice and other medical programs for the terminally ill are very expensive and only drag out the suffering of the patient.
Even if Hospice was an option, it is very overcrowded and there is a lack of care for its patients.

Hospice Care only adds more expenses for the families of terminally ill patients while subtracting the quality of life.
Despite all the controversy surrounding physician-assisted suicide it is another option for terminally ill patients to keep their dignity.

In Conclusion,

Works Cited
Friedman, Lauri S. Compact Research : Assisted Suicide :. San Diego: ReferencePoint, 2009. Print.
McCuen, Gary E. "Chapter 4 Physician-assisted Suicide: Ideas in Conflict." Doctor Assisted Suicide and the Euthanasia Movement. Hudson, WI: GEM Publications, 1994. 109-165. Print.6
Rosenthal, Elisabeth. "The $2.7 Trillion Medical Bill." NYTimes.com. New York Times, 1 June 2013. Web. 21 Nov. 2013.
Wekesser, Carol. Euthanasia: Opposing Viewpoints. San Diego, CA: Greenhaven, 1995. Print.