Death with Dignity - Essay Example

Death with Dignity Introduction The story of Brittany Maynard, a 29-year old suffering from brain cancer, elicited immense debate in the US with regards to doctor assisted suicide. As reported by Zakaria, the diagnosis in the case of Maynard indicated that she would lose her cognitive capabilities and had to undergo the aggressive chemotherapy treatment. She chose not to face this suffering and moved to Oregon. Oregon is one of the five states in the US where doctor assisted suicide is legal. Others are Washington, Vermont, New Mexico and Montana. She chose to end her life on November 1, 2014 and save herself the suffering that would be of no much impact to the period she would live. Her decision faced immense opposition from different sects of the society. Indeed, despite its aim to alleviate patient suffering, doctor assisted suicide goes against moral and ethical principles and should therefore not be allowed. Oregon was the first to implement the Death with Dignity Act in 1997. It allows terminally ill patients who are of competent mental mindset and aged over 18 to obtain lethal medication to end their lives (Yuill 61). Such patients would be required to make a written request and two oral ones in a span of 15 days. The prescribing physician should concur with the prognosis or diagnosis that supports death with dignity, and in consultation with another physician agree to offer assisted suicide. Over time, more states have embraced this legislation as a way out for patients with lingering and intolerable pain. Just a few countries in Europe have legalized death with dignity, notably, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, Switzerland and Belgium (Zakaria). Some other parts of the world, including the Ancient Greece and Rome, have been practicing doctor assisted suicide for generations (Loomis 146). However, the issue continues to elicit heated debate from different quarters on its morality and ethicality. Arguments against Death with Dignity Allowing for physician assisted suicide would lead to an inclusion of more people into the eligible groups. According to Yuill, allowing for assisted suicide would mount pressure upon people feeling that they have become a burden to their families and even healthcare providers to include more categories of people in the death with dignity category (32). This could go forth and even become euthanasia or further to involuntary euthanasia. Thus, allowing for death with dignity presents grounds for abuse of the practice, specifically when driven by greed as opposed to love. Those who should inherit from the patient could encourage premature death of the patient so as to benefit from the inheritance sooner. Additionally, physicians seeking for organ transplants could unnecessarily assist a patient to die so as to acquire the needed organs (Loomis 146). Zakaria observes that families and people charged with taking care of terminally-ill patients could opt to end the life of such a patient because of the cost implications. Therefore, caution should be taken against approving death with dignity. Secondly, physician assisted suicide is irreversible thus presents a room for adversity in case a mistaken prognosis was made. In fact, Loomis notes that it is “final, irreversible” meaning that should any mistake be made in prognosis, mistakes being expected in providing healthcare service, then an outcome that would not be corrected results (147). The Church has been keen to cite clinical failures and terminally ill misdiagnoses which could result in prescription of physician assisted suicide (Purvis 274). Such mistakes, noted to be irreversible, would cause premature deaths. As such, physician assisted suicide should be banned altogether. Death with dignity goes against religious principles on the meaning of suffering and worth of life. Zakaria gives an example of the letter that was written by a devout Christian to Maynard acknowledging that it is not for humans to decide when they take in their last breath; with Jesus being the protector, carrier and redeemer of human hearts, then death should no longer be considered as dying. Led by the Roman Catholic, Christianity, guided by the commandment of “thou shall not kill,” opposes physician assisted suicide (Purvis 275). A similar stand taken by Muslims, guided by texts against murder from the Quran, argues for a divine purpose in every suffering. Hindus and Buddhists believe in reincarnation, hence the belief that the artificial shortening of one’s life to relieve physical suffering could, in the long-run, result in increased existential suffering. The reason for death with dignity as noted by its proponents is to save the patient from the pain associated with illness. However, a majority of religions argue that dying from illness should not necessarily be considered as being painful because palliative sedation could be used. Thus, physician assisted suicide goes against religious teachings to a great extent. Finally, proponents of physician assisted suicide have sought to use words consistent with choices and compassion to keep away from the truth that the act is actually suicide. Indeed, physician assisted suicide refers to killing the patient. A survey reported in the Forbes magazine shows that when accurate language is used, 47% of the US adult public approves of the act as compared to 49% who disapprove of the legislation. However, when euphemistic language such as “end the patient’s life by some painless means” is used, the results of the survey had 70% of Americans supporting physician assisted suicide (Federman). Therefore, the deliberate omission of accurate language by proponents of physician assisted suicide shows their insincerity regarding the issue and should therefore be taken for what it is and disapproved. Arguments for Death with Dignity Proponents of physician assisted suicide argue for death as being part of life and that assisting one to die should not be considered as suicide but an end-of-life care. First, they argue for the freedom of individuals to life or death. As reported by Zakaria, denying persons of sound mental condition access to life-ending drugs amounts to denying them freedom of choice and the right to self-determination. However, this argument has been quashed by Yuill who argues that if autonomy forms the basis for which one obtains assistance to die, then all competent individuals wishing to die should have their requests honored (55). All self-destruction acts should be approved on the basis of autonomy be they for religious reasons or sufferings from failed relationships among others. With the argument on respect for autonomy seemingly promoting all acts of suicide, then, it does not hold as an argument for physician assisted suicide. Physician assisted suicide is regulated by regulations on how and when it should be undertaken. The regulations dictate that a patient makes informed and voluntarily decision to die; it should be in cases where the suffering of the patient has been considered as unbearable with no alleviation strategy possible; and the prognosis of terminal illness by a physician should be confirmed by another physician (Loomis 146). Even with the set guidelines, it has been observed that physician assisted suicide could be misused if greed overrides love (Purvis 272). People could abuse the provisions in the legislation for their own selfish gains. As such, despite the existence of guidelines, allowing physician assisted suicide opens up opportunities for abuse. Conclusion Death with dignity involves obtaining lethal medication to save patients from suffering that has no alleviation. It is an issue that cuts across social, legal, moral, ethical and religious principles. Proponents argue for the freedom of choice and the right to self-determination, an argument that sets forth inconsistency regarding autonomy. Despite being regulated, it could be misused for selfish gains. As such, only a handful of countries around the world have legalized physician assisted suicide. A majority cite its conflict with religious principles on suffering and death, irreversibility of the outcomes, possibility of inclusion of many other unintended groups and the insincerity among its supporters. Therefore, even though death with dignity seeks to alleviate patient suffering, it defies morality and ethics and as such should be disallowed. Works Cited Federman, E. “Physician-Assisted Suicide Debate: Are We Using The Right Language.” Forbes.com. Forbes, 27 Oct. 2014. Web. 22 Nov. 2014. Loomis, W. F. Life as It Is: Biology for the Public Sphere. Berkeley, CA: U of California. Print. Purvis, T. E. “Debating Death: Religion, Politics, and the Oregon Death With Dignity Act.” Yale Journal of Biology and Medicine 85.2 (2012): 271 – 284. Print. Yuill, K. Assisted Suicide: The Liberal, Humanist Case against Legalization. New York, NY: Palgrave, 2013. Print. Zakaria, R. “Assisted Suicide Should be Legal.” Aljazera.com. Aljazeera America. 24 Oct. 2014. Web. 22 Nov. 2014. Read More