Physician Assisted Suicide Research Paper
Rebecca J Jones
ENG 105
April 16 2012
Legalization of Physician Assisted Suicide A hotly debated issue regarding the quality of life for terminally ill patients revolves around the morality and legal implications of euthanasia, or physician assisted suicide which is defined as the painless killing of a patient suffering from an incurable and painful disease, or in an irreversible coma. There are already a multitude of laws in place regulating physician assisted suicide in some states and countries, as well as laws preventing the practice. But despite these preventative laws physician assisted suicide remains an underground practice to relieve patient suffering. In lieu of the supposed moral issues associated with physician assisted suicide, …show more content…
patients should be allowed to exercise their own rights to life, with the legalization of physician assisted suicide
There are of course very powerful reasons for a patient to consider suicide, such as unbearable pain, or a debilitating terminal illness that can cause them to believe that normal functioning human life is no longer possible. An argument against doctor assisted suicide presented by Martin Gunderson is if people have the right to commit suicide, and if they have the right to employ another person to assist with their death. His purpose is “not to argue that suicide is morally permissible or that there is a moral right to commit suicide, but to see what follows from these assumptions” (Gunderson 51-54). He argues that if a person believes the act of suicide is morally permissible, then the act of someone assisting in the suicide is also permissible, using the ‘agency principle’. And that this would be harmful to the standard and profession of the medical field (Gunderson 51-54). Now the actual right to commit suicide is simply explained by HLA Hart, who calls it a “general liberty right, which correlates with a duty of all persons not to prevent the exercise of that right” (Gunderson 51-54). Because if this right exists, people should not be allowed to interfere with the decision, implying that if it was to become legal that if a request for suicide was in fact to be made, that it would be in nobody’s right to deny the request. But Gunderson believes that rights are subject to the reasonable regulations created by a law. The regulations that would take considerable amount of thought into the other compelling rights. This can apply to the rights of the public, the physicians and the family members. If it’s assumed that people have these rights, Gunderson argues, that does not mean it should be legally permissible. “What in fact follows is the weaker claim that right holders also have a right not to have the means by which they might exercise their rights unreasonable restricted” (Gunderson 51-54). That just because people have the right to do something immoral, doesn’t mean they should be legally allowed to do so through doctor or assisted death. Another argument against the passing of physician assisted suicide is presented by Jose Pereira, who provides evidence that laws and safeguards in place against physician assisted suicide are regularly broken and not prosecuted (Pereira 38-45). About 900 people are annually administered lethal doses of substances, and 50% of assisted suicides in one jurisdiction were not reported (Pereira 38-45). Because of the disregard for the law by physicians and patients, Pereira believes that if the practice is legalized, then it will create what is known as a ‘slippery slope’ suggesting that one exception to a law, will be followed by more exceptions, until the law becomes unacceptable. He fears that people would instantly take advantage of the laws if they were passed, and that no real safeguard or regulations can be truly put in place. In the state of Oregon, it is required that any patient requesting suicide be evaluated by a psychologist or psychiatrist to judge the patients mental stability and judgment (Pereira 38-45). It was found that patients going through depression, would be more likely to request suicide than depression treatment, but when psychiatrists prescribe the appropriate medications for depression the patients often took back the requests (Pereira 38-45). This is why he believes that with the already in place disregard for the rules and regulations in place against, or structuring physician assisted suicide, that legalization will only lead to more wrongful deaths. Physicians and patients already have a disregard for the in place statutes and rules against physician assisted suicide, so is should not be legal anywhere, and in general. When in fact the reason that physicians are working around the laws, is because the laws work against terminally ill patients, and is considered a form of discrimination.
In the article written by A. A Brill, M.D. he argues and believes that the legalization of physician assisted suicide would lead to a utopian society and inevitable devolution of man, turning mankind back into the primitive with no morality or sympathy. Brill tells the story of a man who took the lives of five of his terminal patients, the man felt his action was justified and the right thing to do. But because of the public reaction, the man remains anonymous (165). One of the people killed by this man was an infant he dubbed “clearly doomed to imbecility” (Brill 165). This is no means to base a mercy killing off of, because there would have been no way to determine the level of imbecility, and to determine there would have no place in society for this infant (Brill 166). But what certain euthanasia supporters suggest is that despite the mental and physically inept, the psychologically impaired should also be euthanized. This would mean that kidnappers, murderers, all kinds of habitual criminals, and the insane should be “disposed of” According to Dr. Alexis Carrel, a prominent surgeon at the time and Nobel prize winner (Brill 166). If this hypothetical trend continued, then eventually what would be created was a utopian society created by humanity of super-people, with high intellect, morals, and physically perfect (Brill 166). But with this theory follows that killing will become socially accepted, and an inevitable devolution of man with the loss of sympathy of morality, the theory suggests that if euthanasia was legalized that humans would regain the repressed and eradicated instinct to kill (Brill 166). Brill fears that if euthanasia is made legal, that humanity will fall apart and go backwards.
Many people who are diagnosed with a terminal illness suffer from emotional and psychological distress, which can be taken advantage of by physicians, nurses, and family members.
If physician assisted suicide was to be legalized then it is possible a patient may feel pressured by the law to consent, and family members feeling burdened by needy loved one may pressure them to secure an inheritance (Robinson, Scott 40). Because the terminal patients are in such a vulnerable position, their motives are often misdiagnosed, or they are never actually evaluated by a medical professional (Robinson, Scott 40). These vulnerable groups need to be protected because “life-threatening illness can cause considerable spiritual and existential anxiety, hopelessness and despair” (Robinson, Scott 42). Fear, sadness, anger and grief can all lead to clinical depression and feelings of hopelessness, leading to the patient wanting to genuinely die. However, these expressions are often a patients way of reaching out to their physician and caretakers that they are suffering “(psychosocially, existentially, spiritually and/or physically) and asking for help in relieving distress” (Robinson, Scott 43). In the legalization of physician assisted suicide, because there is no uniform way of assessing mental capacity in patients, someone who could have been cured of their depression with the appropriate care may end up ending their life. Depression is often undiagnosed in terminal patients and “the …show more content…
symptoms of depression are similar to those of advanced disease and the side effects of treatment, such as confusion lethargy, fatigue” (Robinson, Scott 44). Physicians could potentially become blind to the psychological needs of their patients, or see them as completely irrelevant. If the patient was provided with the appropriate care the need for physician assisted suicide might not be relevant, Robinson and Scott suggest training nurses and physicians to better prepare them when faced with the suggestion of physician assisted suicide (46).
If patient care, or palliative care as defined by the World Health Organization as “an approact that improves the quality of life… and treatment of pain and other problems, physical, physchosocial and spiritual” the need for physician assisted suicide would be eradicated (Materstvedt et al.
98). Palliative care would use a team approach, to help the patient and family cope during the patient’s illness and provide grief counseling if necessary (Masterstvedt et al. 98). Palliative care should also enhance the quality of life to the patient, and potentially improve the course of the illness. If the palliative care is applied appropriately early in the course of the illness and used with other therapies, it should be used with the intention of prolonging life (Masterstvedt et al. 98). So instead of the pressure of a law, and potential influences of family members eeking an inheritance, the World Health Organization defines a new strategy that would instead work to improve quality of life, instead of ending a poor quality of
life.
Every law and regulation for physician assisted suicide varies in every state and country, though and the shortening of life is legally permissible in most western countries (van der Heide). The only real difference that the legalization of physician assisted suicide would make is that there would be a clear uniform definition of what is permissible, and the underground practices would cease. The prohibition of physician assisted suicide led practitioners to go underground and apply their own uncontrolled and unregulated ethical and medical standards and practices (van der Heide). Most terminally ill patients feel the need to retain control over the last phases of their life. And deeply devoted medical professionally with a “deeply felt respect for patient autonomy, doctors who are committed to providing their patients with optimal end-of-life care” (van der Heide). Professionals who have seen the very worst in human suffering realize that it is often in the patients best interest to let them have control over their own fate. Because of this, patient records and death certificates are often falsified, and wrongful information about the patient’s health status is given to staff outside the conspiracy circle. Often times family members and even the patients themselves get involved by helping to create circumstances unsuspicious by administering the life ending drugs (van der Heide). The fact that the patients and people involved are under wraps about the circumstances surrounding the death of the patient is can negatively affect the patients state of mind, by not being able to be open to other personell, and may even complicate the mourning process for the family members themselves, causing further damage outside the physician assisted suicide (van der Heide). This secrecy threatens to sabotage the development of an accepted practice, causing a conundrum in the legalization that they need to prove euthanasia is good, but the secrecy does not work in their favor. “This reluctance in doctors to openly account for their actions, or doubts about whether reporting will result in further judicial inquiries or prosecution”(van der Heide). The legalization of physician assisted suicide is necessary, but on the verge of impossible because the circular reasoning involving secrecy and what is right. Respect for patient freedom has become the dominant legal and moral debate governing the conduct of clinical practices in physician assisted suicide (Doyal 65-67). But because patients already have the right to refuse life-sustaining care, what’s the difference for a patient suffering severe physical and emotional turmoil, but are not allowed to make the decision to end their own lives with the use of physician assisted suicide. What hasn’t been considered widely is how easy it could potentially be to regulate treatment for incompetent or suffering patients. An example is that patients “must be suffering from such severe brain damage that they will never be able to engage in self-directed activity or social interaction” (Doyal 65-67). The quality of life for patients like this is so low that there is no good reason to let them die naturally, as dark as that sounds they literally have nothing to live for as a vegetable. The moral implications are boiled down to administering a lethal injection of something is equivalent to actively killing a patient, while at the same time the inaction is also equal to active killing (Doyal 65-67). “Clinicians should be encouraged to recognize the moral reality behind withdrawing life-sustaining treatment from severely incompetent patients: they are already killing their patients, whatever they may feel to the contrary” (Doyal 65-67). The goal of physicians is to relieve the severe pain and suffering of their patients, rather than the actual death. And what is being argued among the lawmakers is just that physician assisted suicide is ‘wrong’ rather than the physical and mental capacities and the level of suffering to the patients.
In a survey created to determine the attitudes of terminally ill patients towards physicial assisted suicide, Linda L. Emanuel and others determined that of the 988 patients they surveyed “60.2% supported euthanasia or PAS in a hypothetical situation” (Emanual et al.). Depression and hopelessness are large factors in a patient’s interest in physician assisted suicide, instead of the actual pain itself. The surveyors also analyzed the caregivers and family members of deceased, who reported that “caring for the patient was interfering with their personal lives” (Emanuel et al.). This kind of pressure and unintentional guilt on the patient can cause even more stress and anxiety in their already terminal state, so most patients are in favor of physician assisted suicide. Despite this, about half of the initially interviewed patients, who lived, changed their views on physician assisted suicide and showed more support for the palliative care (Emanuel et al.). A majority of those surveyed found physician assisted suicide to be acceptable for the terminal patients suffering an incredible amount of pain, but for fear of prosecution, most families would not help in the alleviation of the patient’s pain, causing more anxiety in the family and on the patient, leading to a more difficult process (Emanuel et al.). This study “demonstrates that a significant majority of terminally ill patients and recently bereaved caregivers support euthanasia” (Emanuel et al.). The majority of support shows that patients want the option to end their lives with physician assisted suicide.
Wilkinson and Savulescu suggest that since the waiting list of usable organs for transplants consists of more patients than organs, and that thousands of patients on the waiting list die, that patients should be given the choice to donate their organs in the event of withdrawal of life support and intensive care (Wilkinson, Savulescu 32). This idea encourages terminally ill, or brain dead patients to provide consent to end life support and donate their organs. So far there are 100,000 patients on the waiting list for an organ donor, and 18 people die per day waiting, while in the UK 5,000 patients die after withdrawing life-sustaining treatment (Wilkinson, Savulescu 34). These patients known as Life Support Withdrawal Donors could donate organs for transplantation. Because their death is inevitable, the organs “from this group of patients has the potential to alleviate or eliminate the shortfall in organ supply” (Wilkinson, Savulescu 35). This would give someone with a high quality of life a chance to live, and relieving the pain of someone already terminal. Since this organ donation would be for the benefit of other individuals, it would be unacceptable to cause harm to the patient, but it is assumed that death to a terminally-ill patient is not necessarily harm to them, known as the Kantian rule (Wilkinson, Savulescu 37). The goal would be to anaesthetize the patient to remove the organs, an active euthanasia that would lead to brain death once the heart was removed (Wilkinson, Savulescu 40). This process would allow the terminal patient to end their life while at the same time saving the life of someone with a better chance at a high quality of life.
Euthanasia, a Greek work for mercy killing, or easy death is the act of bringing about the death of someone who suffers from an incurable condition, especially a painful one. And with justifiable reasons, people committing suicide are considered victims instead of criminals (Ebbott 177). Ancient societies believed that euthanasia was not contradictory to their morals, and that every person had their individual right. But the rise in Christianity changed the morals and values about death and dying (Ebbott 175). The Christians taught that suicide was a form of murder and against god’s law. Ministers even taught that suffering was a sign of god’s grace and the worship of a suffering Jesus (177). But around the 19th century people began to secularize, where many educated people adopted that “individual freedom of thought trumped obedience to church dogma” (Ebbott 179). Because the church controls the government, people who have terminal illnesses travel to other countries, in search of clinics that provide suicide assistance; this is called suicide tourism (Ebbott 199). Instead of needy patients being forced to travel for the car they need, it makes more sense to have it legalized in the states, instead of letting religion press its thumb into the back of our government’s neck.
Suffering terminally-ill patients should have the right to choose physician assisted suicide, without worrying about the legal implications they’re subjecting their physicians and family members to. It’s strictly a moral and religious issue that is keeping the practice illegal, and it is nonsense that it has to be that way. Professionals in their field are not looking to murder as many patients as possible; they are simply trying to alleviate the agony and suffering of a patient. Works Cited
Brill, A.A. "Is "Mercy Killing" Justified?." National Save-A-Life League. (1935): 165-167. Print.
Doyal, Len. "Dignity in Dying Should Include the Legalization of Non-Voluntary Euthanasia." Clinical Ethics. 1. (2006): 65-67. Print.
Ebbott, Kristina. "A "Good Death" Defined By the Law: Comparing the Legality of Aid-In-Dying Around the World." 31.1 (2010): 171-205. Print.
Emanuel, Linda L, , et al. "Attitudes and Desires Related to Euthanasia and Physician-Assisted Suicide Among Terminally Ill Patients and Their Caregivers."JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association. (1997): n. page. Print.
Gunderson, Martin. "A Right to Suicide Does Not Entail a Right to Assisted Death." Journal of Medical Ethics. 23. (1997): 51-54. Print.
Materstvedt, Lars, David Clark, John Ellershaw, Reidun Forde, Anne-Marie Gravgaard, Christof Muller-Busch, Josep Sales, and Charles-Henri Rapin. "Euthanasia and Physician-Assisted Suicide: A View From an EAPC Ethics Task Force." SAGE. 17.97 (2003): 97-101. Print.
Pereira, Jose. "Legalizing Euthanasia or Assisted Suicide: the Illusion of Safeguards and Controls." Biomedical Ethics. 18.2 38-45. Print.
Scott , H, and V Robinson. "Why Assisted Suicide Must Remain Illegal in the UK." Art & Science: End of Life Care. 26.18 (2012): 40-48. Print. van der Heide, Agnes. "Doctor-Assisted Dying: What Difference Does Legalization Make?." Medicine, Crime, and Punishment. 364. (2004): 24-25. Print.
Wilkinson, Dominic, and Julian Savulescu. "Should We Allow Organ Donation Euthanasia? Alternatives for Maximizing the Number and Quality of Organs for Transplantation." Blackwell Publishing Ltd. . (2012): 32-48. Print.
ENG 105
April 16 2012
Legalization of Physician Assisted Suicide A hotly debated issue regarding the quality of life for terminally ill patients revolves around the morality and legal implications of euthanasia, or physician assisted suicide which is defined as the painless killing of a patient suffering from an incurable and painful disease, or in an irreversible coma. There are already a multitude of laws in place regulating physician assisted suicide in some states and countries, as well as laws preventing the practice. But despite these preventative laws physician assisted suicide remains an underground practice to relieve patient suffering. In lieu of the supposed moral issues associated with physician assisted suicide, …show more content…
patients should be allowed to exercise their own rights to life, with the legalization of physician assisted suicide
There are of course very powerful reasons for a patient to consider suicide, such as unbearable pain, or a debilitating terminal illness that can cause them to believe that normal functioning human life is no longer possible. An argument against doctor assisted suicide presented by Martin Gunderson is if people have the right to commit suicide, and if they have the right to employ another person to assist with their death. His purpose is “not to argue that suicide is morally permissible or that there is a moral right to commit suicide, but to see what follows from these assumptions” (Gunderson 51-54). He argues that if a person believes the act of suicide is morally permissible, then the act of someone assisting in the suicide is also permissible, using the ‘agency principle’. And that this would be harmful to the standard and profession of the medical field (Gunderson 51-54). Now the actual right to commit suicide is simply explained by HLA Hart, who calls it a “general liberty right, which correlates with a duty of all persons not to prevent the exercise of that right” (Gunderson 51-54). Because if this right exists, people should not be allowed to interfere with the decision, implying that if it was to become legal that if a request for suicide was in fact to be made, that it would be in nobody’s right to deny the request. But Gunderson believes that rights are subject to the reasonable regulations created by a law. The regulations that would take considerable amount of thought into the other compelling rights. This can apply to the rights of the public, the physicians and the family members. If it’s assumed that people have these rights, Gunderson argues, that does not mean it should be legally permissible. “What in fact follows is the weaker claim that right holders also have a right not to have the means by which they might exercise their rights unreasonable restricted” (Gunderson 51-54). That just because people have the right to do something immoral, doesn’t mean they should be legally allowed to do so through doctor or assisted death. Another argument against the passing of physician assisted suicide is presented by Jose Pereira, who provides evidence that laws and safeguards in place against physician assisted suicide are regularly broken and not prosecuted (Pereira 38-45). About 900 people are annually administered lethal doses of substances, and 50% of assisted suicides in one jurisdiction were not reported (Pereira 38-45). Because of the disregard for the law by physicians and patients, Pereira believes that if the practice is legalized, then it will create what is known as a ‘slippery slope’ suggesting that one exception to a law, will be followed by more exceptions, until the law becomes unacceptable. He fears that people would instantly take advantage of the laws if they were passed, and that no real safeguard or regulations can be truly put in place. In the state of Oregon, it is required that any patient requesting suicide be evaluated by a psychologist or psychiatrist to judge the patients mental stability and judgment (Pereira 38-45). It was found that patients going through depression, would be more likely to request suicide than depression treatment, but when psychiatrists prescribe the appropriate medications for depression the patients often took back the requests (Pereira 38-45). This is why he believes that with the already in place disregard for the rules and regulations in place against, or structuring physician assisted suicide, that legalization will only lead to more wrongful deaths. Physicians and patients already have a disregard for the in place statutes and rules against physician assisted suicide, so is should not be legal anywhere, and in general. When in fact the reason that physicians are working around the laws, is because the laws work against terminally ill patients, and is considered a form of discrimination.
In the article written by A. A Brill, M.D. he argues and believes that the legalization of physician assisted suicide would lead to a utopian society and inevitable devolution of man, turning mankind back into the primitive with no morality or sympathy. Brill tells the story of a man who took the lives of five of his terminal patients, the man felt his action was justified and the right thing to do. But because of the public reaction, the man remains anonymous (165). One of the people killed by this man was an infant he dubbed “clearly doomed to imbecility” (Brill 165). This is no means to base a mercy killing off of, because there would have been no way to determine the level of imbecility, and to determine there would have no place in society for this infant (Brill 166). But what certain euthanasia supporters suggest is that despite the mental and physically inept, the psychologically impaired should also be euthanized. This would mean that kidnappers, murderers, all kinds of habitual criminals, and the insane should be “disposed of” According to Dr. Alexis Carrel, a prominent surgeon at the time and Nobel prize winner (Brill 166). If this hypothetical trend continued, then eventually what would be created was a utopian society created by humanity of super-people, with high intellect, morals, and physically perfect (Brill 166). But with this theory follows that killing will become socially accepted, and an inevitable devolution of man with the loss of sympathy of morality, the theory suggests that if euthanasia was legalized that humans would regain the repressed and eradicated instinct to kill (Brill 166). Brill fears that if euthanasia is made legal, that humanity will fall apart and go backwards.
Many people who are diagnosed with a terminal illness suffer from emotional and psychological distress, which can be taken advantage of by physicians, nurses, and family members.
If physician assisted suicide was to be legalized then it is possible a patient may feel pressured by the law to consent, and family members feeling burdened by needy loved one may pressure them to secure an inheritance (Robinson, Scott 40). Because the terminal patients are in such a vulnerable position, their motives are often misdiagnosed, or they are never actually evaluated by a medical professional (Robinson, Scott 40). These vulnerable groups need to be protected because “life-threatening illness can cause considerable spiritual and existential anxiety, hopelessness and despair” (Robinson, Scott 42). Fear, sadness, anger and grief can all lead to clinical depression and feelings of hopelessness, leading to the patient wanting to genuinely die. However, these expressions are often a patients way of reaching out to their physician and caretakers that they are suffering “(psychosocially, existentially, spiritually and/or physically) and asking for help in relieving distress” (Robinson, Scott 43). In the legalization of physician assisted suicide, because there is no uniform way of assessing mental capacity in patients, someone who could have been cured of their depression with the appropriate care may end up ending their life. Depression is often undiagnosed in terminal patients and “the …show more content…
symptoms of depression are similar to those of advanced disease and the side effects of treatment, such as confusion lethargy, fatigue” (Robinson, Scott 44). Physicians could potentially become blind to the psychological needs of their patients, or see them as completely irrelevant. If the patient was provided with the appropriate care the need for physician assisted suicide might not be relevant, Robinson and Scott suggest training nurses and physicians to better prepare them when faced with the suggestion of physician assisted suicide (46).
If patient care, or palliative care as defined by the World Health Organization as “an approact that improves the quality of life… and treatment of pain and other problems, physical, physchosocial and spiritual” the need for physician assisted suicide would be eradicated (Materstvedt et al.
98). Palliative care would use a team approach, to help the patient and family cope during the patient’s illness and provide grief counseling if necessary (Masterstvedt et al. 98). Palliative care should also enhance the quality of life to the patient, and potentially improve the course of the illness. If the palliative care is applied appropriately early in the course of the illness and used with other therapies, it should be used with the intention of prolonging life (Masterstvedt et al. 98). So instead of the pressure of a law, and potential influences of family members eeking an inheritance, the World Health Organization defines a new strategy that would instead work to improve quality of life, instead of ending a poor quality of
life.
Every law and regulation for physician assisted suicide varies in every state and country, though and the shortening of life is legally permissible in most western countries (van der Heide). The only real difference that the legalization of physician assisted suicide would make is that there would be a clear uniform definition of what is permissible, and the underground practices would cease. The prohibition of physician assisted suicide led practitioners to go underground and apply their own uncontrolled and unregulated ethical and medical standards and practices (van der Heide). Most terminally ill patients feel the need to retain control over the last phases of their life. And deeply devoted medical professionally with a “deeply felt respect for patient autonomy, doctors who are committed to providing their patients with optimal end-of-life care” (van der Heide). Professionals who have seen the very worst in human suffering realize that it is often in the patients best interest to let them have control over their own fate. Because of this, patient records and death certificates are often falsified, and wrongful information about the patient’s health status is given to staff outside the conspiracy circle. Often times family members and even the patients themselves get involved by helping to create circumstances unsuspicious by administering the life ending drugs (van der Heide). The fact that the patients and people involved are under wraps about the circumstances surrounding the death of the patient is can negatively affect the patients state of mind, by not being able to be open to other personell, and may even complicate the mourning process for the family members themselves, causing further damage outside the physician assisted suicide (van der Heide). This secrecy threatens to sabotage the development of an accepted practice, causing a conundrum in the legalization that they need to prove euthanasia is good, but the secrecy does not work in their favor. “This reluctance in doctors to openly account for their actions, or doubts about whether reporting will result in further judicial inquiries or prosecution”(van der Heide). The legalization of physician assisted suicide is necessary, but on the verge of impossible because the circular reasoning involving secrecy and what is right. Respect for patient freedom has become the dominant legal and moral debate governing the conduct of clinical practices in physician assisted suicide (Doyal 65-67). But because patients already have the right to refuse life-sustaining care, what’s the difference for a patient suffering severe physical and emotional turmoil, but are not allowed to make the decision to end their own lives with the use of physician assisted suicide. What hasn’t been considered widely is how easy it could potentially be to regulate treatment for incompetent or suffering patients. An example is that patients “must be suffering from such severe brain damage that they will never be able to engage in self-directed activity or social interaction” (Doyal 65-67). The quality of life for patients like this is so low that there is no good reason to let them die naturally, as dark as that sounds they literally have nothing to live for as a vegetable. The moral implications are boiled down to administering a lethal injection of something is equivalent to actively killing a patient, while at the same time the inaction is also equal to active killing (Doyal 65-67). “Clinicians should be encouraged to recognize the moral reality behind withdrawing life-sustaining treatment from severely incompetent patients: they are already killing their patients, whatever they may feel to the contrary” (Doyal 65-67). The goal of physicians is to relieve the severe pain and suffering of their patients, rather than the actual death. And what is being argued among the lawmakers is just that physician assisted suicide is ‘wrong’ rather than the physical and mental capacities and the level of suffering to the patients.
In a survey created to determine the attitudes of terminally ill patients towards physicial assisted suicide, Linda L. Emanuel and others determined that of the 988 patients they surveyed “60.2% supported euthanasia or PAS in a hypothetical situation” (Emanual et al.). Depression and hopelessness are large factors in a patient’s interest in physician assisted suicide, instead of the actual pain itself. The surveyors also analyzed the caregivers and family members of deceased, who reported that “caring for the patient was interfering with their personal lives” (Emanuel et al.). This kind of pressure and unintentional guilt on the patient can cause even more stress and anxiety in their already terminal state, so most patients are in favor of physician assisted suicide. Despite this, about half of the initially interviewed patients, who lived, changed their views on physician assisted suicide and showed more support for the palliative care (Emanuel et al.). A majority of those surveyed found physician assisted suicide to be acceptable for the terminal patients suffering an incredible amount of pain, but for fear of prosecution, most families would not help in the alleviation of the patient’s pain, causing more anxiety in the family and on the patient, leading to a more difficult process (Emanuel et al.). This study “demonstrates that a significant majority of terminally ill patients and recently bereaved caregivers support euthanasia” (Emanuel et al.). The majority of support shows that patients want the option to end their lives with physician assisted suicide.
Wilkinson and Savulescu suggest that since the waiting list of usable organs for transplants consists of more patients than organs, and that thousands of patients on the waiting list die, that patients should be given the choice to donate their organs in the event of withdrawal of life support and intensive care (Wilkinson, Savulescu 32). This idea encourages terminally ill, or brain dead patients to provide consent to end life support and donate their organs. So far there are 100,000 patients on the waiting list for an organ donor, and 18 people die per day waiting, while in the UK 5,000 patients die after withdrawing life-sustaining treatment (Wilkinson, Savulescu 34). These patients known as Life Support Withdrawal Donors could donate organs for transplantation. Because their death is inevitable, the organs “from this group of patients has the potential to alleviate or eliminate the shortfall in organ supply” (Wilkinson, Savulescu 35). This would give someone with a high quality of life a chance to live, and relieving the pain of someone already terminal. Since this organ donation would be for the benefit of other individuals, it would be unacceptable to cause harm to the patient, but it is assumed that death to a terminally-ill patient is not necessarily harm to them, known as the Kantian rule (Wilkinson, Savulescu 37). The goal would be to anaesthetize the patient to remove the organs, an active euthanasia that would lead to brain death once the heart was removed (Wilkinson, Savulescu 40). This process would allow the terminal patient to end their life while at the same time saving the life of someone with a better chance at a high quality of life.
Euthanasia, a Greek work for mercy killing, or easy death is the act of bringing about the death of someone who suffers from an incurable condition, especially a painful one. And with justifiable reasons, people committing suicide are considered victims instead of criminals (Ebbott 177). Ancient societies believed that euthanasia was not contradictory to their morals, and that every person had their individual right. But the rise in Christianity changed the morals and values about death and dying (Ebbott 175). The Christians taught that suicide was a form of murder and against god’s law. Ministers even taught that suffering was a sign of god’s grace and the worship of a suffering Jesus (177). But around the 19th century people began to secularize, where many educated people adopted that “individual freedom of thought trumped obedience to church dogma” (Ebbott 179). Because the church controls the government, people who have terminal illnesses travel to other countries, in search of clinics that provide suicide assistance; this is called suicide tourism (Ebbott 199). Instead of needy patients being forced to travel for the car they need, it makes more sense to have it legalized in the states, instead of letting religion press its thumb into the back of our government’s neck.
Suffering terminally-ill patients should have the right to choose physician assisted suicide, without worrying about the legal implications they’re subjecting their physicians and family members to. It’s strictly a moral and religious issue that is keeping the practice illegal, and it is nonsense that it has to be that way. Professionals in their field are not looking to murder as many patients as possible; they are simply trying to alleviate the agony and suffering of a patient. Works Cited
Brill, A.A. "Is "Mercy Killing" Justified?." National Save-A-Life League. (1935): 165-167. Print.
Doyal, Len. "Dignity in Dying Should Include the Legalization of Non-Voluntary Euthanasia." Clinical Ethics. 1. (2006): 65-67. Print.
Ebbott, Kristina. "A "Good Death" Defined By the Law: Comparing the Legality of Aid-In-Dying Around the World." 31.1 (2010): 171-205. Print.
Emanuel, Linda L, , et al. "Attitudes and Desires Related to Euthanasia and Physician-Assisted Suicide Among Terminally Ill Patients and Their Caregivers."JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association. (1997): n. page. Print.
Gunderson, Martin. "A Right to Suicide Does Not Entail a Right to Assisted Death." Journal of Medical Ethics. 23. (1997): 51-54. Print.
Materstvedt, Lars, David Clark, John Ellershaw, Reidun Forde, Anne-Marie Gravgaard, Christof Muller-Busch, Josep Sales, and Charles-Henri Rapin. "Euthanasia and Physician-Assisted Suicide: A View From an EAPC Ethics Task Force." SAGE. 17.97 (2003): 97-101. Print.
Pereira, Jose. "Legalizing Euthanasia or Assisted Suicide: the Illusion of Safeguards and Controls." Biomedical Ethics. 18.2 38-45. Print.
Scott , H, and V Robinson. "Why Assisted Suicide Must Remain Illegal in the UK." Art & Science: End of Life Care. 26.18 (2012): 40-48. Print. van der Heide, Agnes. "Doctor-Assisted Dying: What Difference Does Legalization Make?." Medicine, Crime, and Punishment. 364. (2004): 24-25. Print.
Wilkinson, Dominic, and Julian Savulescu. "Should We Allow Organ Donation Euthanasia? Alternatives for Maximizing the Number and Quality of Organs for Transplantation." Blackwell Publishing Ltd. . (2012): 32-48. Print.