Why Is Physician Assisted Suicide Morally Wrong

While some people, mainly those with terminal and mental illnesses seek relief from living in this debased world, does not give a physician the right to perform assisted suicide. This is a procedure where a person uses another, generally a physician, to kill themselves. The doctor does not kill the individual but that person administers the lethal dose themselves. Such a controversial issue has garnered international attention; in some countries, and even some states in the United States, have made physician assisted suicide legal to perform. While each person has a right to decide whether to live or die, assisted suicide is morally wrong. The moral question comes down to why would assisted suicide be acceptable? That is tantamount to premeditated murder, as another person is sanctioning the death. Just because in general the accomplice is a physician that does not make assisted suicide an acceptable act. There are arguments for both sides of this issue, and both have valid claims. On one side, the person does have the right to choose whether to live or not. Seeking advice from a physician is a good route to go down, since the act will be monitored and more apt to succeed. Oregon has shown that if
safeguards are met, then assisted suicide is not something to be shunned by society. The Oregon death and dignity act was enacted in 1997, and 750 people have taken advantage of such legislature. Thaddaeus Mason Pope, director of the Health Law Institute at Hamline University contributed an article to the New York Times. During this article, Pope brings out:
In significant part, this is due to many safeguards in Oregon’s law, which only allows participation by defined categories of patients. Patients must be mentally healthy residents of Oregon, 18 or older, who have had two physicians determine that they have no more than six months to live.
The safeguards also ensure that patients are making a voluntary and informed decision. A physician must educate the patient about all options, including palliative care, pain management and hospice. The patient must make three separate requests (two oral and one written). The oral requests must be separated by at least 15 days, and the written request must be independently witnessed by two people. The patient can rescind these requests at any time. Finally, to further ensure that patients remain in full control of the process, they must administer the medication themselves.
These safeguards work. There is no evidence of an inordinate impact on vulnerable populations. Indeed, over 97 percent of the patients who died from ingesting a lethal dose of medication were white. Over 98 percent had health insurance, over 90 percent were enrolled in hospice and over 72 percent had gone to college. Nor does available research show any negative impact on the availability of palliative care or on the physician-patient relationship. Today Oregon is a universally recognized leader in end-of-life care across the entire continuum of options. In short, the Oregon law has been a success. (3-5)
This data explains that Oregon has taken end of life care and made an easy way out for those with no other options. While medically sound and legally justified, this is not the only option that terminally ill patients have. The argument against assisted suicide is that on a moral basis a person should live life until their last natural breath.
There is the possibility of assisted living, hospice, and of course hospitalization. Craig Paterson says in his book, “As agents, we are concerned to assess the structural make-up of morally significant actions and are not content to rest with the description of an action that is only focused on its further objective or consequences” (75). Paterson is telling us that as moral agents, we need to understand the action, not only the consequence. This is the fundamental reason why assisted suicide should not be condoned. Therefore, any action to terminate another life is morally unacceptable, even if society has sanctioned such
actions. By looking at both sides of the issue, one can conclude that while each argument is strong, only the moral decisions should be taken into account. It should never be justified to assist one in taking their life under any circumstances. The public needs to understand that even though legislature has legalized killing someone that does not circumvent the moral choice as a human. We never sanction killing a person, so we should never accept assisted suicide, no matter how bad things may be. Life is precious, and there is no need to cut it short because of an illness.