Physician-Assisted Suicide - Research Paper Example

?Running head: PHYSICIAN-ASSISTED SUICIDE Physician-Assisted Suicide Insert Insert Insert 08 September Outline Introduction Physician-assisted suicide Principles of ethical and moral reasoning Meta-ethics principles Physician-assisted suicide: is it right or wrong? Ethical relativism Conclusion References Physician-Assisted Suicide Introduction Society is regarded to be one big area that accommodates people with different social, cultural, psychological, political and economic values who also intermingle frequently. Their idea of life and interpretation of it may largely differ from that of the other person and in most cases, what is regarded to be right or wrong has never enjoyed consensus. Making decision in the chaotic and confusing daily environment of human society is what characterizes problems individuals are subjected to. Consequently, numerous ethical problems have emerged that human finds it practically difficult to make decisions. Making decision on various issues concerning life is one area human beings continue to experience unending dilemma especially with regard to judging what is right or what is wrong. The way this has become a problem can be captured in the overall nature humankind regard and value life. In this way, physician-assisted suicide has become an ethical problem that modern society has to continue and prolong debate on it. It is within this purview that effort will be made at looking at the issue of physician-assisted suicide within the chaotic human environment of ethical inclination and freedom of right to choice and self-determination. Questions about this concept are many: is it right or is it wrong; should it be accepted; and also should medical practitioners get involved. Physician-assisted suicide Some societies in western countries and America are today painstakingly grappling with the issue of physician assisted suicides as it become more controversial and challenging with each passing day (Morrison and Monagle, 2009). Death and process of dying remain one of the fiercest debates societies in western countries are living with and answers to this debate remain scanty if not illusionary. Imageries of death and the process of dying remains candid on the media and other avenues of social networks and in large measures, the imageries have been stimulated and ingrained with prevalence of diseases in society such as HIV/AIDS, heart diseases, cancer and even traumatic injuries (Morrison and Monagle, 2009). Physician-assisted suicide enjoys little legal acceptance, a situation that has also infected larger religious and ethics bodies in many countries who continue to sternly oppose the practice. Nevertheless, in societies like America public opinion polls have been carried out severally on the issue and results have indicated a divided society on the issue. For example, about 37% of the population have expressed their support for the practice, 33% have indicated support for the practice but under a wide variety of circumstances, and lastly, 30% have totally opposed the practice under any circumstances (Morrison and Monagle, 2009). What this shows is that physician-assisted suicide constitutes both right and wrong answers while on the other hand there is still dilemma among some people on the practice as it continues to become part of society. Morrison and Monagle (2009) provides definition and characterization of physician-assisted suicide as the situation the patient seeks or is advised professionally to intentionally and willfully end his or her life. Therefore, this is a situation that involves the patient and the third part who in most cases is a medical practitioner. The medical practitioner become central to the patient in terms of providing assistance that may be in form of: information, means of committing suicide, and also aiding the patient indirectly in the act of committing suicide. Therefore a physician can be perceived to provide both tangible and intangible materials that the patient need for suicide to be done, and through this way the physician is seen to morally participate in the dying process of an individual. The need to assist a patient to commit suicide and subsequently terminate his or her life is normally justified from two angles: the patient’s right to autonomy and the medical practitioner’s responsibility to relieve pain of the patient (Morrison and Monagle, 2009). Therefore, in his or her own capacity of exercising self-autonomy and right to individual decision, a patient may seek practitioner’s assistance to terminate life. On his part, the practitioner guided by the need to see pain relieved on the part of the patient, may suggest assisted suicide to the patient in belief that such an act constitute moral obligation of help. Principles of ethical and moral reasoning The concept of ethics is largely concerned with investigating the ‘ultimate good’ of man and the means of attaining it sometimes is not applied universally, while morality may be seen as intuitional; according to which conduct is held to be right when conformed to certain precepts or principles of duty (Sidgwick, 1981). Different schools or principles of ethics exists which can be employed in explaining the practice of physician-assisted suicide. But it has to be remembered though the principles may not adequately explain the essence of practice but rather provide a glimpse in which the whole issue can be viewed and sieved ethically. Utilitarianism is the first theory and it postulate that happiness in its greatest measure should accrue to the larger number of people in society (Peil, 2009). Analyzing this proposition it can be stated that an action become right in perception when the sum total of utilities of the action exceeds the sum total of utilities produced by an alternative action (Peil, 2009). Sidgwick (1981) concurs with this and state that, “the constantly proper end of action on the part of any individual at the moment of action is his real greatest happiness from that moment to the end of his life” (p.10). In applying utilitarianism the basic procedure is of cost-benefit analysis where for example, when an individual decide whether to perform action A, the rule is he must perform if the benefits for present and future populations exceed those of the next best alternative course of action and if this is not the case then the individual should not perform A (Peil, 2009). The promotion of happiness is at the heart of the principle of utility. Deontological ethics is another set of ethics that has been widely used in explaining ethical nature of actions individuals decide to take. In its nature deontological ethics will want to posit what is correct especially with regard to decision-making. Immanuel Kant, a Germany writer is one credited with this set of ethics. In developing deontological ethics, Kant wanted to explain why an act that is carried out by an individual is more important than the consequence (Gamino and Ritter, 2009). The understanding of this philosopher was that, an act which originates from personal motive is important part of determining the rightness of an ethical decision and from this an act becomes right or wrong purely by the quality of the intention behind the act (Gamino and Ritter, 2009). The understanding of deontology ethics is that humans have dignity and that dignity has to be observed when dealing with fellow humans. More so, individuals have needs and desires, respect and when dealing with people it is always important not to violate their rights. Categorical imperative is what can be evidenced in Kant’s principle which naturally explains that an act can be considered to be ethical only when such an act is based on rational reason or the universal law. Deontological ethical process put little consideration to the consequences of the act and instead gets concerned with the individual or other people think is right for the person involved in the act. The third category of ethics constitutes the virtue ethics, whereby the hypothesis of this group of ethics is that individuals have certain principles that regulate and guide their lives. In undertaking any action, these individuals would resort to their life held principles for reference before deciding to make any act. In this way, an act is perceived to be right or wrong depending on interpretations of the values and life fundamental elements the individual holds or beliefs in (Gamino and Ritter, 2009). As a set of ethical principles that guide decision-making among individuals, virtual ethics operate on four basic principles: non-maleficence, beneficence, autonomy and justice (Gamino and Ritter, 2009). Virtue ethics provides that individual in making decision or acting in a particular way will do it in a noble way that brings out the actual virtues of the person with regard to life, humankind and the society at large. Meta-ethics principles Apart from the major ethical principles there exist three approaches that have been used to solve arising moral questions that sometimes classical ethics do not solve. Relativism is the first set of meta-ethics which postulate that determination of ethical standards should be captured within barometer of one’s cultural background (Gensler, 1998). In this way, instead of judging something to be right or wrong, efforts need to be made that reflect cultural viewpoint of an individual (Gensler, 1998). Therefore, in making ethical decision, relativism put emphasis on the need to take into consideration the values of other people one is engaged in instead of having preference for personal subjective stand-point of view. As a result, relativism always advocate for tolerance, accommodation, appreciation and respect for another culture and any evaluation of what is right or wrong should be relative to that culture (Gensler, 1998). Emotivism is another set of meta-ethics that subtract the element of reasoning in decision making and instead perceive individual moral evaluation to be purely an expression of what individual like or dislike personally. Therefore something (decision) is right if on individual basis a person feels so and is wrong if the same individual feels so. Therefore Emotivism makes a moral claim that is generally an emotional and an attitudinal response to an issue or particular behavior (Gensler, 1998). The last, meta-ethic is the ethical egoism which in largely advocates for ethical decision processes to reflect individual’s personal desires and goals. In such way, what an individual wants is considered to be right in his purview and wrong it becomes wrong when attempts are made to stop the individual from having or carrying out the particular action (Bowie and Bowie, 2004). In this way, individuals are seen to act in way that aims to increase their own happiness and own pleasure irrespective what the larger human society might perceive such actions. Therefore, in making decision individuals are believed to have all reasons that would promote their happiness and pleasure and in such way, there actions are regarded to be right ethically from the self-interest perspective. Physician-assisted suicide: is it right or wrong? Debates on this subject, as it was seen earlier remain divided in the modern society, a situation that has led to ethical dilemma specifically among medical practitioners. But how can ethicality of physician-assisted suicide be established? Morrison and Monagle (2009) observes that the reasons that justify the act of cooperating in suicide or killing a person without physical participation originates largely from the patient’s right to self-determination and also the physician’s responsibility to relieve pain. Utilitarianism ethics advocate for consequentiality of an act. What is the end result of the act to the individual, family and society? Are the benefits of physician-assisted suicide outweigh the costs or is vice versa? In terms of the right for self-determination and autonomy, the patient may regard the act as the only way to end his or her misery hence obtains ‘happiness’. But again, by deciding to go through the death process itself of suicide, is it not a misery in itself? The patient and doctor may perceive the benefits to outweigh the cost in terms of saving other promising lives with services the current patient enjoys when his or her condition may not improve in the end. Also, the family of the individual may be put into focus in that, the decision is seen to relieve the family the burden of both financial and emotional cost that the patient has brought to them. Obtaining maximum utility and subsequently enhancing welfarism constitute the cornerstone of utilitarianism ethics. Maxim utility can be perceived to be the derivation of happiness on the part of the patient while welfarism can be attached to larger society. In bringing happiness to the patient, physician-assisted suicide is seen to lessen pain, provide permanent comfort to the patient and also enable the patient to make personal decision that to him or her constitute what is right to him or her. Patient’s happiness may also be reflected in the overall failed life goals that the patient perceive would have been obtained if it was not for the disease and therefore the value of life and the need to continue it has totally faded away and from this ultimate happiness from this distress can only be obtained through physician-assisted suicide. Family and society also become part of the utilitarianism ethics, where the net benefit of the action to the society becomes the riding reason for proceeding with the action. It may be evident that the patient’s disease manifest little chances of success and however much is done, the end results will be ultimate death of the individual. Therefore, family resources spent on the individual become key consideration here. Also, the overall cost of the patient continuing to live when several other patients suffer and who could benefit more aptly from the services directed at the patient become key in making decision. Providing advice to the patient finally is seen both having individual benefits and community benefits in terms of happiness and reducing resources spend. But the other side of the coin has to be evaluated. Does individual self-determination and autonomy function in vacuum? In other words, does the individual live independently and has total detachment to the larger society and its value system? Patients despite their situation still remain part of the family, society and nation at large. There is no way an evaluation of pain and subsequent suggestion of death can only be done in independence with disregard to other aspects in larger society. The family, society happiness has to be considered as well since the patient by the virtue of being autonomous does not cease to be a member of the family and society. Ethical Relativism Relativism is what can be appropriate in resolving this dilemma. Relativism advocate for respect of other people’s cultural consideration that may include values, norms, perception, and beliefs, which individuals need to also respect. Argument for physician-assisted suicide as it was discovered earlier is an issue that has divided society and no general consensus exist on the issue, although legal mechanism would purport to offer a solution. Exercising relativism, then it would be possible to view the larger society on a leveling ground before making any particular decision. What values does the larger society holds, what family beliefs and cultural orientation does the patient’s family members hold? What is the position of the patient’s religion on the issue/ what does the legal structure state? And also what does the medical fraternity believe in? These are some of the questions relativism approach can answer in arriving at the appropriate ethical decision concerning physician-assisted suicide. Conclusion The society regards and adores life as precious thing that should be venerated by everyone. This veneration does not just end with the human population; but it also extends to other species of the universe. In this way people are required to have and exercise moral status especially towards life which is perceived to constitute moral obligation. To postulate that an entity has moral status is to mean that people may not just treat it the way they please but they are much obliged to give weight in their deliberations to its importance and function in society (Warren, 2000). Therefore, making ethical decision about physician-assisted suicide requires a thorough tumultuous journey into the ethical principles’ world. References Bowie, B. and Bowie, R. A. (2004). Ethical Studies. London: Nelson Thornes. Retrieved September 10, 2011, from http://books.google.com/books?id=G-tLQSXvhDsC&pg=PP5&dq=ethical+relativism,+emotivism+and+ethical+egoism&hl=en&ei=KjtrTs_FJMSk-gbh6tTxBA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CDAQ6AEwATgU#v=onepage&q=ethical%20relativism%2C%20emotivism%20and%20ethical%20egoism&f=false. Gamino, L. A and Ritter, R. H. (2009). Ethical practice in grief counseling. NY: Springer Publishing Company. Retrieved September 10, 2011, from http://books.google.com/books?id=G-NuBL-xlSoC&pg=PA9&dq=virtue+ethics+and+Physician+Assisted+Suicide&hl=en&ei=TJRqTvGgF4qZOtPX0OUF&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=9&ved=0CF0Q6AEwCA#v=onepage&q=virtue%20ethics%20and%20Physician%20Assisted%20Suicide&f=false. Gensler, H. J. (1998). Ethics: a contemporary introduction. NY: Routledge. Retrieved September 10, 2011, from http://books.google.com/books?id=msO2Fjgvt30C&pg=PA159&dq=ethical+relativism,+emotivism+and+ethical+egoism&hl=en&ei=WzhrTvWALJGa-waazcHPBA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=7&ved=0CEwQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=ethical%20relativism%2C%20emotivism%20and%20ethical%20egoism&f=false. Morrison, E. E. and Monagle, J. F. (2009). Health care ethics: critical issues for the 21st century. MA: Jones & Bartlett Learning. Retrieved September 10, 2011, from http://books.google.com/books?id=FUImVpCNoJEC&pg=PA222&dq=ethics+of+Physician+Assisted+Suicide&hl=en&ei=Y5BqTuaiM4qCOv251MwF&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5&ved=0CEMQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=ethics%20of%20Physician%20Assisted%20Suicide&f=false. Peil. J. (2009). Handbook of Economics and Ethics. IN: Edward Elger Publishing. Retrieved September 10, 2011, from http://books.google.com/books?id=YahcdBQ5nqQC&pg=PA497&dq=systems+of+ethics&lr=&as_brr=3&cd=10#v=onepage&q=systems%20of%20ethics&f=true. Sidgwick. H. (1981). The methods of ethics. Hackett Publishing. Retrieved September 10, 2011, from http://books.google.com/books?id=YYYsGTuH8HYC&pg=PR37&dq=utilitarianism+and+ethics+of+innovation&lr=&as_brr=3&cd=2#v=onepage&q=utilitarianism%20and%20ethics%20of%20innovation&f=false. Warren, A. M. (2000). Moral status: obligations to persons and other living things. London: Oxford University Press. Retrieved September 10, 2011, from http://books.google.com/books?id=KJFSbVAL6hEC&pg=PA51&dq=Warren,+A.+M.+(2000)-moral+staus&lr=&as_brr=3&cd=1#v=onepage&q&f=false. Read More