Should The Federal Government Legalize Physician-Assisted Suicide - Essay Example

Lecturer: The Federal Government Should Legalize Physician Assisted Suicide Physician assisted suicides occurs whenthe physician facilitates the patient’s death through provision of information or other means that enable the patient to carry out a life-ending act such as provision of information on the legal dose of sleeping pills (Kopelman 5). Physician-assisted suicide is different from Euthanasia since it entails the consent of the patient and the physician assists the patient through terminal sedation with an overdose of pills thus allowing the patient to die due to starvation or dehydration. Other methods include withdrawal of the life-sustaining treatments or administering pain medication that will hasten death through impairing critical body organ functions such as respiration (Jeffrey 73). The recent efforts of legalizing physician-assisted suicide have triggered intense medical, legal and social debates on whether physicians must be granted the authority to assist patients to intentionally end their lives. Physicians have a professional responsibility of respecting the patient’s choice and thus assisted suicide will enable the patient’s escape the pain and suffering in case of terminal illnesses (Jeffrey 68). Furthermore, a well-regulated assisted suicide practice will eliminate the slippery slope and ensure proper decision-making in assisting the patients commit suicide. The paper is addressed to health care policy makers that are tasked with offering guidelines on physician-assisted suicides in different parts of the country on how standardized physician-assisted suicide will be beneficial to the health care sector. The paper will discuss the arguments that have been put forward for and against physician-assisted suicide. The paper will make a conclusion on why the federal government should consider legalizing and regulating the practice since it is beneficial for patients suffering from extreme suffering due to life-threatening illnesses. Thesis statement: the federal government should legalize physician-assisted suicide Arguments For Physician Assisted Suicide I believe the federal government should legalize physician-assisted suicide in order to eliminate the terminal pain and suffering experienced by patients suffering from acute diseases. Although many physicians claim that they have the professional responsibility of preserving life and enhancing health care even for the terminally ill patients, the physicians have the knowledge and skills to assess the hopelessness situations of some patients and thus should assist them in committing suicide rather than leaving the patient undergo unbearable suffering (Jeffrey 78). About 57 percent of practicing physicians have received at least one suicide death request from terminally ill patients since more than 50 percent of the pain from terminal illnesses is uncontrollable through palliative care (Kopelman 33). Patients have a right to select their preferred mode of treatment thus implying the right to select whether to die or continue living. Although the US Supreme Court in the case of Washington v. Glucksberg (1997) ruled that there is no constitutional protection of the right to assisted suicide, Oregon, Washington, Vermont and Montana allow for the practice and studies in those states have indicated that patients suffering from terminal illness are willing to commit suicide in order to die with dignity (Jeffrey 74). Leading case examples that demonstrate the positive public opinion in support of the practice is the 2006 Gallup Poll whereby 69 percent of Americans favored the practice in case of incurable disease and the 59 percent public support of the Washington Death with Dignity Act of 2008 that legalized the practice in the state (Jeffrey 95). The patient choice takes precedence in treatment and some terminal illness situations must take the priority of the patient especially when living has become burdensome and purposeful living has ceased. Patients often claim that their ‘life is not worth living’ and thus physicians must provide guidance to stop further indignity and despair of the patient (Jeffrey 92). Legalization of the physician-assisted suicides will benefit the health care system since health costs will decline thus leading to lower insurance premiums. Cauthen claims that the American public keeps of ‘complaining of high health costs, health insurance premiums, drug costs and medical diagnosis costs, yet the population has not considered options of reducing down the costs such as allowing physician-assisted suicide for the terminally-ill patients’ (para 6). It is worrying that the US health care public spending accounts for about 20 percent of the GDP, which is higher than global average of 10 percent in other developed countries (Dyck 67). Legalizing the practice will reduce spending on complex life sustaining treatments such as cardiopulmonary resuscitation when it is medically evident such patients will definitely die from the illness within several months (Dyck 69). Additionally, the high medical costs will drain the patient’s financial resources thus leaving the dependants in poverty. In this case, the practice will save health care costs and increase access to health care insurance for many American citizens (Jeffrey 104). Families and friends of patients suffering from terminal illness will experience anguish since some situations are unbearable especially when the prospects of extending life are limited. Family members usually undergo trauma, despair and suffering after thinking of the suffering their loved ones are undergoing thus it is ideal for physicians to facilitate suicide in order to end the suffering undergo by the family members (Cauthen para 4). Every person agrees that they will suffer from sense of powerlessness as they watch a loved relative writhe in pain and experience slow and painful death thus assisting the patient commit suicide will bring a merciful relief to the family members. In some situations, the palliative care is often inadequate to relieve the patient from suffering. There are certain diseases such as Alzheimer that cause the patients to lose total control of their lives due to progressive dementia and memory loss. According to a past survey study appearing in the New England Journal of Medicine in 2003, a considerable number of physicians surveyed agree they could administer lethal drugs to the patient when the patient is in extreme suffering even though the practice was illegal in England during the survey (Dyck 90). Therefore, implementing the practice will let the people die with pride, dignity and intact self-worth rather than letting them experience traumatic memory loss and pain that will ultimately lead to death after suffering. The federal legal system can develop laws that allow the practice and regulate it from abuse in order to maintain the value of human life through documented standards and guidelines that will regulate the practice (Jeffrey 109). For instance, the informed consent of the patient must be sought in writing and such patients must a sound mind. In addition, the lawyers of the patient must be involved and close family members must be informed of the decision of the patient. Additionally, the available palliative care and nature of the disease must be terminal and patient must be experiencing acute pain and suffering that will make the chances of surviving the disease minimal. A good example of the standardized practice is Oregon’s Measure 16 is a proper guideline since the physicians in assisted suicide are only allowed to prescribe the suicide dose to mentally competent patients whose lengthy of life has been determined to be less than 6 months. Furthermore, stringent guidelines must require additional physicians to assess the patient’s conditions and determine the patient’s main motivation of death. Arguments Against Physician Assisted Suicide On the other hand, opponents of this practice assert that the federal government and society has a duty of protecting the dignity of human life and opposing any form of legislation that sanctions assisted suicide. Kopelman asserts that ‘modern medicine and treatment options have the capability of relieving the patient pain since specialists in palliative care have indicated that careful symptoms control in case of life-threatening diseases have the potential of reducing the desire for hastened death’ (p 24). The practice is against the professional integrity of the health sector careers. Ancient traditions of medicine oppose the taking of life since physicians have a Hippocratic oath that requires them to be beneficial to the society and refrain from causing any harm (Cauthen para 5). In this case, assisting patients commit suicide is doing harm to the society since such patients may be economical viable to the society after recovery of the disease. Another argument that has been put forward to counter the possibility of legalizing the practice is the fallibility of the profession. Physicians often commit certain mistakes in their prognosis and diagnosis of diseases thus may lead to inadequate treatment of pain of wrong prescription. The states have regulatory bodies that issue accreditation and practicing licenses after attainment of certain knowledge, skills and years of experience and thus allowing assisted suicide will reduce the high-esteem accorded to the respected profession (Kopelman 70). Furthermore, assisted suicide will open a floodgate where physicians who are not keen on their duties may commit mistakes that will lead to patient deaths and escape disciplinary action by the regulatory authority. Ideally, it is essential to prohibit physician-assisted suicide in order to ensure the physicians exercise high standards of care and due diligence in disease diagnosis and prognosis thus ultimately improving the health outcomes of the treatments (Kopelman 74). Although the right of self-determination advocated for physician-assisted suicide may seem strong enough, the right to save life is paramount and government must not allow any medical practices that aim at interfering with this right (Dyck 82). The sanctity of life arguments has evidenced that all religious and secular traditions respect the dignity and right to life and disagree with practices that may assist individuals die. Although the American state is not affiliated to any particular religious belief, most people believe that it is the only Creator has the right to take away the life of human beings and physician-assisted suicide goes against the will of Creator. Sanctioning assisted suicide interferes with the rights of the physicians since some may feel pressurized to prescribe the lethal dose in order to satisfy the desires of the patient. In this case, many physicians hold the values of human dignity and believe that palliative care should not be restricted and comforting patients until their natural death is a requirement of their profession (Dyck 86). Accordingly, physicians demonstrate high ethical standards in their practice and assistance in terminating the patient’s life is unethical according to their profession. Furthermore, the American Medical Association has previous opposed the legalization of the practice in states like Washington and Oregon and therefore the association that comprises of experienced physicians will oppose the measures undertaken by the federal government in legalizing the cruel practice (Dyck 95). Physician-assisted suicide violates the physicians’ primary responsibility of ensuring the health and safety of patients and assisting the patients to overcome suffering. Medical professionals should provide the best attainable care that will prevent patient pain and suffering and assisting patients to commit suicide would diminish the trust bestowed on the profession by the public. Patients are human beings and physicians must treat them with respect and dignity in order to maintain the value of life in the society (Dyck 89). The core principle followed by health professionals is to protect the patient from harm and thus assisted suicide creates more harm through distorting the medical processes of patient healing. Physician assisted suicides will create a slippery slope that will permit other practices that permit the termination of human life such as involuntary euthanasia. In this case, legalization of the physician-assisted suicides is similar to federal government mandated suffering that demeans the dignity of lives of its citizens. Dyck is of the idea that the practice has a potential of ‘spreading to mentally and physically-challenged health adults who may not be suffering any terminal illness due to the current prejudices and stereotypes existing in American society about this unique groups of citizens’ (p 110). From the above arguments, it is clear that legalization of physician-assisted suicide is important in the society in order to eliminate extreme patient pain and suffering. A well-regulated physician-assistance suicide practice will eliminate the slippery slope risk and ensure patient exercise their right of choice regarding the treatment. Individuals have a liberty to commit suicide when their prospects of living are non-existence and physicians must extend compassion through hastening the death. The health care and life insurance premiums will also decline thus improving quality and access to health care services. The health care policy makers must take measures to prepare policy guidelines and advocate for federal legalization of the practice. Works cited: Cauthen, Kenneth. ‘Physician-assisted suicide and Euthanasia’, Retrieved from Web on 17th July, 2014 from http://www.frontiernet.net/~kenc/asuici.htm. Dyck, Arthur. Life’s worth: the case against assisted suicide. New York: Routledge. 2010. Jeffrey, David. Against physician assisted suicide: a palliative care perspective. Oxford: Radcliffe Publications. 2009. Kopelman, Loretta. Physician-assisted suicide: what are the issues?. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. 2001. Read More