Physician assisted suicide should be a right given to all people who are suffering from a painful, degenerative, or deadly condition. Anyone who might never enjoy the luxuries of living a happy and healthy life again. Though several ongoing debates are against physician-assisted suicide, ethicists are still not the one who is responsible to make this decision. Patients have the right to free will and human dignity that gives them the right to choose physician assisted suicide. Being able to have this choice allows the patient to maintain some control over their devastating situation.
The Dangers of Assisted Suicide “Advocates of physician assisted suicide try to convey the impression that in terminally ill patients the wish to die is totally different from suicidal intent in those without terminal illness” (Herbert and Klerman 118.) Physician assisted suicide is when a physician assists their patient in dying upon their request. In some states there are laws giving limitations to who can request such a “procedure,“ but these laws are not enough to prevent the dangers of assisted suicide. Assisted suicide should be illegal in all fifty states because it is immoral, dangerous to society, and can lead to the deaths of millions of depressed people. “Critics of physician assisted suicide believe that doctors like Jack Kevorkian are doing nothing less than playing God“ (Gay 47.)
For example, many people against this decision claim that it is not ethical due to the fundamental tenet of medical ethics which is “Do no harm” (Bender 37).This decision is very ethical because what is not ethical is letting an innocent person die instead of taking the route of assisted suicide. If the person suffering was a relative of another person will they think twice not to because it is their loved ones suffering. By defining ethics it is related to a moral principle in which many differ from principles and standards. Another debate can be that assisted suicide is not a constitutional right. Assisted suicide is a choice which the constitution does support freedom of choice.
To this day, one of the biggest controversial topics that continue to spark endless discussions is the public approval of euthanasia. Euthanasia which is commonly known as “assisted suicide” is the deliberate action of ending a life to relieve continuous pain and suffering (Nordqvist, 2010). This has become a complicated global issue, as various cultures battle with the list of ethical, religious, and legal factors that play a major part in the act. Many see euthanasia as a benefit not only for the patient, but for the patient’s family as well. In this case, the practice is able to end one’s life in a peaceful manner, while a financial and emotional burden can also be lifted off of the family members.
First, Should euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide be legal? I support euthanasia because we are all sentient beings in control of our own destinies and governance over our bodies. Jasper Emmering, MD stated, “…Then there is a practical matter: the moral distinction between abstaining from life-saving treatment, palliative sedation and euthanasia is very murk, for me it doesn’t exist at all. Therefore it makes no sense that the first two are legal while the third is not.” To get a better understanding of the debate, allow me to explain what physician-assisted suicide is; the situation occurs when a physician facilitates a patient’s death by providing the necessary means and/or information to enable the patient to perform the life-ending act. A physician may provide sleeping pills and information about the lethal dose, with the full knowledge of the patient’s expectation for the outcome.
If a person is suffering in unbearable pain and cannot enjoy life then euthanasia would be the best option to help that person die a dignified and peaceful death, rather than a period of lost dignity and prolonged suffering. Current laws state that active euthanasia is illegal in most of the country. Patients can refuse medical treatment and receive pain management, even if the patient’s choices hasten their death. Futile or burdensome treatments, such as life support machines, may be withdrawn under specific circumstances. Under federal and some state laws medical facilities need consent from patients or, in the event of incompetency of the patient, informed consent of the legal surrogate.
We just asked for her to be removed from technology and be placed in a natural state.” People who are against euthanasia believe that passive euthanasia is wrong. This is because human-beings have no right to die and should not seek to control ending of a person’s life as it is against the natural. However, I truly believe that continued treatment in terminally ill patients are the real action which against
Euthanasia should remain illegal Euthanasia is a word with such great meaning but is often misunderstood by individuals. Some define this term as “the right to die” whereas others define it as “the right to kill Euthanasia is the act of encouraging a painless death or looking for the help for a good death. The act of euthanasia often occurs because long-term patients would rather drink poison or get shot by somebody than suffering their whole life fighting against a major disease. The term euthanasia is also known as mercy killing since it’s a way of ending one’s life who is not willing to live anymore. [1] This happens usually for compassionate reasons such as to reduce the pain of the ill ones.
However, there are many pros and cons to each side of the argument. Physician-assisted suicide is unethical based on the Hippocratic Oath, but is ethical based on the patient’s views – which sometimes outweigh the morals of a physician. Physician-assisted suicide first became an issue when our society decided that it was neither moral nor ethical for a physician to help end a terminally ill patient’s life. According to Katie Pickert, Dr. Jack Kevorkian brought lots of attention to the topic during the “epic assisted suicide battle of the 1990s” (1). People who argue with Kevorkian for physician-assisted suicide feel that by helping a patient end his or her life peacefully is helpful to family and friends.
If these are indeed the rights which the state deems valuable for its citizens, then a paternalistic cause must act in support of a majority of these rights. Obviously, allowing PAS and euthanasia eliminate a patient's right to life by killing them. However, the banning of PAS and euthanasia may lead to the elimination of a patient's right to the pursuit of happiness. Happiness is not simply the state of being happy, it also is the state of not being unhappy. Happiness can be seen as a continuous scale between the state of total misery and total joy, with non-existence sitting exactly in the middle.