euthanasia

The important topic of euthanasia, as well as physician, assisted suicide has received support and criticisms in equal measure on whether they are morally permissible. Euthanasia refers to the intentional act to commit suicide or an intentional omission to lengthen the life of an incurable patient in their interest or so as to benefit them. Physician-assisted suicide refers to the intentional action in which a medical practitioner provides medications or other interventions to a patient with the clear understanding that the patient will use them to end their life.  Physician-assisted suicide is already legalized in states such as Oregon, Vermont, California and Washington that have enacted death with dignity statutes. Physician-assisted suicide is also legalized in Montana by state Supreme Court ruling. In this paper, I employ various moral dimensions to argue that physician-assisted suicide should be legalized in the US.

II.    First argument

The principle of autonomy justifies the legalization of physician-assisted death. The principle of autonomy requires that patients must be permitted to make a decision on when it is appropriate to commit suicide through physician-assisted suicide. This principle is one of the fundamental principles of medical ethics, thus of great importance and should be respected. The patients wanting to commit suicide may want to do so because of severe suffering caused by terminal illness. Patients suffering from terminal diseases have a right to decide not to hurt (Mitchell, Ben, 69). Proponents of physician-assisted suicide argue that suffering is evil hence the act is necessary to eliminate suffering and pain. Therefore, permitting assisted suicide so as only to end suffering is necessary, and those suffering have a right to end their suffering by committing suicide. Considering that these patients have no specialized or well-trained knowledge of committing suicide, they, therefore, are dependent on physicians to give them a successful approach to ending their lives.

III.    Objection to the first argument

The first argument, however, does not work, and not all the premises are justifiable, and all combined cannot result in a suitable conclusion. For instance, technical training is not an appropriate reason to state why a physician must assist a patient in ending their lives. There are numerous other effective approaches available on the internet and other sources that can result in successful suicide. It thus does not require any training. Also, the principle of autonomy is not an absolute human good and has several limitations due to several factors in healthcare. One is the disparity of knowledge as well as the clinical judgment of the patient. Two, suffering is not insurmountable although it is a severe problem. Most of the patients who want to end their lives because of suffering usually mean physical pain which is treatable. Several powerful analgesics and pain management interventions assist in managing pain.

IV.    Reply to the objection

This objection is, however, wrong since the principle of autonomy is concerned on patient empowerment, choice as well as human dignity. These three values cannot be achieved if the principle is limited. Although the physician agrees to assist, the decision is solely made by the patient. Also, unlike most other means of committing suicide available on the internet, physician-assisted suicide is not painful. In countries that have permitted the physician-assisted suicide, the Death with Dignity law ensures that the process is voluntary and no one gets obligated to use the laws. When the physician prescribes the medication, the patient is the only one “who can decide if and when they want to take the prescribed medication” (Death with Dignity).

V.    Second argument

The principle beneficence in medical ethics requires that physicians further the well-being of patients. Therefore, if living creates more pain and suffering as compared to death, then physician-assisted suicide should be permitted. If death is the lesser evil to a situation, a physician is permitted to give a patient morphine for pain relief, even though they understand that it hasten the patient’s death. Also, physicians cannot allow a patient to starve themselves to death or use other cruel methods of committing suicide. It is the duty of the doctor to examine the patient other appropriate palliative care options besides stopping to eat and drink. The physicians actively assist a patient to starve themselves by prescribing a sedative known as terminal sedation so as to reduce the discomfort associated with starving and dehydration (Grohol, John).

VI.    Objection to the second argument

This argument is, however, wrong since doctors have a duty to do good at all times and must not involve themselves with the death of a patient, even when a patient requests for it. However, actively assisting a patient to shorten their lives makes them a killer. Kamm, Frances Myrna argues that when a doctor prescribes morphine to produce pain relief and also foresees with certainty that the patient will die, this should be considered as a killing case, even though the physician did not intend the death.

VII.    Objection

The principle of beneficence does not violate the patient’s right not to be killed since the legalization of physician-assisted suicide gives clear guidelines top protect the patient and the doctor. Also, the “law does not coerce or compel a physician to prescribe fatal doses of medication to aid in the death of patient” (Pies, Ronald). Therefore if the law is passed, they will be required to do it for the benefit of patients.

VIII.    Conclusion

The paper comprehensively argues that physician-assisted suicide should be permitted in the US. The principle of autonomy gives a terminally-ill patient who is mentally competent (that is not psychotic, delirious or severely depressed) the right to make a decision to commit suicide. The principle of beneficence protects the doctor of such a patient in assisting in death for the benefit of the patient. Therefore, assisted suicide should be legalized in all states in America.

References

Death with Dignity: How to Access and Use Death with Dignity Laws (2016) 

Grohol, John. Death with Dignity: Why I Don’t Want to Have to Starve Myself to Death (2012): 

Kamm, Frances Myrna. "A Right to Choose Death?." Boston review 22.3 (1997).

Mitchell, Ben “Why Doctors Must Not Be Complicit in Killing Their Patients” (2015): p. 69-71

Pies, Ronald: Physician-Assisted Suicide: Why Medical Ethics Must Sometimes Trump the Patient’s Choice (2012)

Sherry Roberts is the author of this paper. A senior editor at Melda Research in nursing paper writing services if you need a similar paper you can place your order for Medicine Essay Writing.