Pros of Euthanasia or Physician Assisted Suicide - Research Paper Example

Pros of Euthanasia or Physician Assisted Suicide The Supreme Court ruled in 2006 that s can set their own laws on suicide assistance. But experts say the term “assistance” can be difficult to define. “You have some in our society saying this action is a crime,” said William H. Colby, a lawyer and fellow of the Center for Practical Bioethics. “You have others saying this is such an important right that it rises to the level of our Constitution” (Brown) Euthanasia or Physician Assisted Suicide (PAS) is one of the controversial topics in the modern world. Many people are of the view that a patient in critical conditions should be allowed to perform PAS since he/she is the one who ultimately suffer the pain, agony and discomfort of the disease. On the other hand many others are of the view that PAS should not be allowed because of the serious moral and ethical issues involved in performing PAS. They are of the view that only the creator has the right to decide about the future of his creations. In other words, creations or the human being has no authority over his life and only the GOD will decide when to take back the life he has created for some specific purpose. Even then, there are many people or patients who like to finish their life in this world with the help of a physician because of the severe discomfort, pain or agony developed as part of their chronic diseases. Weir (1997) has pointed out that “Euthanasia or PAS transaction will ordinarily take place within the boundaries of private and confidential doctor-patient relationships” (Weir, p.82). This paper argues in favour of PAS after analysing the pros and cons of performing euthanasia. “The reasons for favouring physician assisted suicide are not difficult to determine. They consists mainly of the interests that dying patients have in the process of dying being as painless and dignified as possible” (Dworkin et al, p.3). Most of the times death comes quite unexpectedly; however in the case of patients with chronic diseases or in no hope conditions; death is often expected at any time. It is difficult for a patient to sustain his/her life in anticipation of death. While being healthy, nobody think of death and therefore they can lead comparatively stress free life. On the other hand, when approaching end of life situations, it is difficult for a patient to remain calm and lead a stress free life. At the same time such patients do not like to exhibit their emotions and agony to others. Some people not even like to hear or face the sympathetic words and looks of others. They do not like to exhibit their helplessness and agony to others. Such people like to escape from this world as soon as possible and PAS serves as a blessing to them. Pain is another major factor which forces people to think in terms of PAS. Nobody wants to sustain his/her painful life if he/she is in a no hope conditions. People or patients may try to manage their pains if they have the hope of recovery from the disease. In no hope conditions, patients always like to put an end to their life in this world. It is quite possible that the relatives and friends of the patient may try to prevent the patient from opting for PAS. They may cite ethical reasons to prevent him from committing PAS. However ethical reasons against Pas are based on beliefs. Beliefs can be true or false. Under such circumstances, the patient has the right to decide whether he has to sustain his painful life because of ethical reasons or to finish his life because of physical reasons. Physical reasons or pain and agony may become intolerable at some stages and the patients may like to terminate their life. They may not have the ability or courage to commit suicide. Such people can make use of the facility PAS, in order to get relieved from the painful life in this world. Some terminally ill patients are in so much pain that they would rather end their life than to go on suffering and experience a poor quality of life. Because of physical and mental limitations, people in pain have a much different view on living than people with good health. This altered view makes some choose certain courses of care in a debilitating illness he or she may not even consider in a healthy state of being. Many healthcare providers claim that terminally ill peoples pain can be controlled to tolerable levels with good pain management, yet there are tens of millions of patients who do not have access to adequate pain management in the U.S. alone (Physician Assisted Suicide and The Art of Care) It is evident that life is an irreversible process and death is unavoidable and most disappointing aspect of human life. Nobody, under normal circumstance, wants to terminate their life in this world. Everybody wants to extend their life as much as possible. This is because of the uncertainties prevailing around life after death. Even though, religions are talking loudly about a life after death, it has not been proved scientifically yet. A person approaching his end of life may always have the worries about his life after death. Religions teach its believers that the activities of the earthly life will be considered seriously while granting hell or heaven to a person after his death. In other words, a person approaching his end of life may feel great agony, both physically and mentally. On one side, the physical aspect (agony and pain) forcing him to commit PAS and on the other side, the ethical aspect (the belief that those who commit suicide may get punishment after death) forcing him not to commit PAS. In short, PAS involves both physical and moral elements. In other words it is an ethical issue in which a struggle between the body and mind would take place and the winner would be either the body (In case the patient opts for PAS) or the mind (In case the patient decides against PAS). Atheists do not believe in God or life after death. Such people may not face any struggle while taking decision about the sustainment of their life in pathetic conditions. PAS is a blessing to such people to terminate their unwanted life in this world. Philippe Naughton (2006) has argued that “the relationships between the patient and the physician would be changed once mercy killing is legalized” (Naughton). It is widely accepted that the duty of medical science is to save human life. A doctor or healthcare professional should always think in terms of saving human life. Medical ethics emphasize the importance and value of human life. At the same time it allows healthcare professionals to do everything possible to avoid pain and discomfort of the patients. It is ethically wrong to leave a patient in pain and agony while other options available in front of the doctor. The doctor should have the responsibly to inform the patient about the nature, seriousness and recovery chances of his disease. There is no point in leaving a patient in pathetic condition even after the doctor and the patient know that the chances of recovery are zero percent. For example, in many of the cases of cancer diseases, doctors have definite knowledge about the number of days remaining for the patient. Unlike many other diseases, it should be noted that cancer disease has the ability to enforce intolerable pain and agony to the patients. It is illogical and unethical to force such patients to extend their life for few more days in great agony. Doctor has the moral responsibility to work in favour of the patient. If death is a favour which is demanded by a chronic patient, the doctor should consider that demand positively. Under such circumstances, there is no point in arguing that legalization of PAS may redefine the doctor-patient relationships and medical ethics principles. Many religious organizations believe that suffering can be used to purify us. This purification can be for the caregiver and for the patient. It is a time to learn and be aware how the body becomes more soul in the process of transformation associated with dying and death. Christians believe that life is a gift from God and God does not send us any experience we cannot handle. Islam states in the Quran, Take not life which Allah made sacred otherwise than in the course of justice. And Since we did not create ourselves, we do not own our bodies. Orthodox Judaism states that This is an issue of critical constitutional and moral significance which Jewish tradition clearly speaks to. We believe that the recognition of a constitutionally recognized right to die for the terminally ill is a clear statement against the recognition and sanctity of human life (Physician Assisted Suicide and The Art of Care) Critics of PAS argue that only the creator has the right and authority to take back the life forms he created. The logic behind above argument is that creator has created this world and its entire objects for some specific purposes. Human is unaware of God’s plans. Life is the most important thing in this world and no science or technology so far succeeded in unveiling the miseries surrounding life. Nobody knows from where we come and where we go after death. Under such circumstances critics argue that PAS is unethical and illogical. Science argues against religious beliefs citing lack of evidences put forward by the religions for its claims. Science always accepts things, if it is backed up with measurable evidences or facts. In short, it is difficult for a layman to determine which is right; religions or science. At the same time it is evident that the arguments of religions are based on beliefs whereas the arguments of science are based on facts. In other words, it is logical to give more value to facts rather than beliefs and under such circumstances; legalization of PAS cannot be questioned. There are many people who argue against euthanasia citing social reasons. In their opinion, PAS is one way of underestimating the value of human life. They point out that the concept of PAS could be misused in many ways. It is quite possible that a person kills another person and may try to justify his killing on moral grounds, if PAS is legally allowed. In the midst of narrating a television program about end-of-life decisions, the documentary maker Ray Gosling departed from the prepared script and declared, his voice shaking with emotion, “I killed someone once.” He said the person had been a partner from long ago, stricken with AIDS. “In a hospital one hot afternoon, the doctor said, ‘There’s nothing we can do,’ and he was in terrible, terrible pain,” Mr. Gosling, 70, said in the BBC program “Inside Out.” “I said to the doctor, ‘Leave me just for a bit,’ and he went away. I picked up the pillow and smothered him until he was dead.” The confession put Mr. Gosling, a well-known figure who has made dozens of documentaries for radio and television, in the center of a furious long-running debate about euthanasia in Britain (Lyall). It should be noted that Ray Gosling could have avoided that killing and the subsequent guilty consciousness, if PAS was permitted in Britain. In Britain, PAS is not allowed legally which means doctors cannot help patients to commit suicide. In other words, British patients in chronic condition do not have any option left other than suffering the pain. Under such circumstances, Ray Gosling like people may try to help their beloved ones to accept death. Moreover such incidents will never come out in public notice if the killer decides to hide it. If assisted suicide was legalized, chronic patients can seek the help of physicians and accept death without any pain, agony or discomfort. To conclude, euthanasia or physician assisted suicide has more advantages than disadvantages. Most of the reasons cited against euthanasia are based on beliefs rather than facts. On the other hand, majority of the reasons cited in favor of physician assisted suicide are based on facts rather than fiction. The value of life cannot be underestimated; however, the advocacy of asking a patient to extend his life in drastic conditions cannot be justified under any circumstances. A person has the right to decide whether to sustain his life in miserable conditions or not. He has the right to accept his death in a dignified manner. Euthanasia helps patients in critical conditions not only to get rid of pain, but also to plan his death. Religions always oppose the concept of PAS. It is because of the fear of violation of ethical principles about human life. Religions have the belief that human life is the creation of God and only the God has the right to sustain or kill human life on earth. Since the mysteries surrounding life and death are not going to be unveiled in near future, many of the people value the opinions of religions more than that of the opinions of science or technology. However, it is logical to think in terms of finishing a life when it creates more harm than the good. There is no point in asking person to stay in his pathetic conditions and suffer a lot purely based on religious beliefs or ethical principles. Ethical principles are formulated for the wellbeing of people and nobody can justify an ethical principle if it causes harm to a person. Under such circumstances, euthanasia or physician assisted suicide can be justified. Works Cited 1. Brown, Robbie. “Arrests Draw New Attention to Assisted Suicide”. The New York Times. March 10, 2009. Web. 31 May 2011. 2. Dworkin Gerald, Frey R.G. and Bok Sissela. “Euthanasia and Physician-Assisted Suicide”. 1998. Publisher: Cambridge University Press (August 28, 1998) 3. Lyall, Sarah. “BBC Host Admits Killing Ailing Partner”. 2010. The New York Times. February 17, 2010. Web. 31 May 2011. 4. Naughton, Philippe. “Lords Block Mercy Killings Bill”. 2006. Times Online May 12, 2006. Web. 31 May 2011. 5. “Physician Assisted Suicide and The Art of Care”. Web. 31 May 2011. 6. Weir, Robert F. “Physician Assisted Suicide”. 1997. Publisher: Indiana University Press; 1st edition (January 15, 1997) Read More