Physician-Assisted Suicide for the Terminally Ill - Research Paper Example

Physician Assisted Suicide for the Terminally Ill Physician Assisted Suicide (PAS) and Euthanasia or Mercy killing are some of the highly controversial topics in the contemporary societies in America and in other parts of the world. Even though the major objective remains the same, PAS and Euthanasia are implemented differently. PAS is a kind of suicide performed with the help of a physician. In the case of PAS, the patient himself takes the medicine for committing suicide with the help of the doctor. In other words, before performing PAS, a physician should take the permission of the patients with terminal illnesses. On the other hand, euthanasia is a type of killing which is normally performed without taking the permission of the patient. In the case of euthanasia, the doctor kills the patient based on the instructions from the closest relatives of the patient because of the inability of the patient in taking sound decisions and conveying that decisions to the doctor. Even though PAS is legally permitted in three American states such as Oregon, Washington and Montana, euthanasia is not permitted in any of the states in America. Even though the efforts to legalize PAS in different American states have started in the first half of the twentieth century, none of those efforts found success because of various reasons. However, American courts started to allow PAS during the latter parts of the twentieth century. Oregon was the first American state which legalized PAS in 1998; followed by Washington in 2008 and Montana in 2009. This paper analyses the controversies, legal battles and different dimensions associated with PAS. “In the late 80s Dr. Jack Kevorkian built a machine that helped people to commit suicide by giving them a narcotic followed by a lethal dose of potassium chloride. This machine enables disabled suicide candidates to kill themselves at the mere touch of a button” (Jack Kevorkian). Dr. Jack, not only made this suicide machine, but also started to place ads in newspapers about it. In other words, he tried to make money from PAS business. The commercial interest of the doctor in conducting PAS was questioned by many of the social and religious organizations in America. Moreover, people started to argue that such a killing machine would be misused by people for intentional killing also. Dr. Jack challenged the criminal justice system in America. The criminal justice system failed to take any actions against Dr. Jack, since he had no direct role in killing the patients. The patients themselves operated the machine and committed suicide. In other words, the doctor was responsible only for performing passive euthanasia1. “However, in 1998, Dr. Jack crossed all the limits and performed an active euthanasia2 for which the court sentenced him 10 to 25 years in prison”(Jack Kevorkian). Dr Timothy Quill also admitted that he has performed a PAS in early 1990’s in New York. His patient was a female leukaemia patient who pleaded for PAS because of her concerns about dying in pain or incompetent. After vigorous analysis of this case, the court decided not to punish Dr Timothy Quill (Gross). According to Dr. Quill, the care for dying patients is part of medical profession. In his opinion, what is important is the success of the doctor remains in how well he is able to help the patient to get rid of pain, discomfort and agony. He argued that stopping further treatment or allowing the patient to accept death in dignity has nothing to with the violation of medical ethics. The names of Karen Ann Quinlan, Terry Sciavo, and Nancy Cruzan cannot be forgotten when we analyse the cases with respect to the right to die. Karen forced to sustain her life for a longer period in ventilator care even though the hope for survival was zero percentage. Her parents asked the hospital authorities to remove ventilator care and further treatment to allow her die. However, the hospital refused to do so and the relatives of Karen approached the court. The court declared in favour of Karen’s parents after analysing various dimensions of this case. Terry Sciavo’s and Nancy Cruzan’s cases were also not much different. Terry Sciavo suffered severe brain damage after a cardiac arrest in 1990. She forced to sustain her life till 2005 amidst of different legal battles between her husband who argued for PAS and her parents who argued against performing a PAS. Even president Bush forced to interfere in this matter. However, the court finally decided to remove her feeding tubes in 2005 after evaluating the arguments of her husband and her parents. Nancy Cruzan, who suffered severe injuries in an accident, was also forced to sustain her life with the help of feeding tubes for a longer period, even though her parents demanded PAS. Initially the court hesitated to approve the demands of Nancy’s parents and finally reversed their decision in favour of her parents. In all the above three cases, one can see some people argue in favour and some against performing PAS. This is because of the ethical or moral dimensions involved in performing PAS. According to religious views, nobody, except the GOD has the authority to take decisions about the lives of human being. In other words, only the creator has the right to destroy his creations. The arguments of the religions are very much important since science and technology failed so far in unveiling the mysteries surrounding the life after death. Religions propose a life after death based on belief whereas science rejects such claims because of lack of evidences. Both science and religions agree that an invisible force or energy (Soul, spirit or Mind) is driving our body. Religions believe that this energy is provided by the GOD whereas science has no clue at all about from where this energy comes and where it goes after the death of a person. It is fact that our body becomes dead once we lose this energy. According to theories of science, energy can neither be created nor be destroyed, but can be transformed from one form to another. If that is true science should explain what happens to the human soul after the death of a person. In other words, it is logical to put trust on the arguments of religions till science succeeded in unveiling the mysteries surrounding life and death. “The Oregon Death With Dignity Act was passed in November 1994 by a margin of 51% to 49%. After multiple legal proceedings prevented its enactment, the Act became law on October 27, 1997” (Facts and Statistics on Euthanasia). In 2008 November, Washington became the second state in America which legalized PAS. “Death with Dignity Act,” which allows physicians to prescribe a fatal dose of medication to patients whom a doctor feels is likely to die within six months, passed in the state 59% to 41%” (White). “Physicians in Montana should not fear criminal prosecution when writing lethal prescriptions for mentally competent patients with terminal illnesses, the state's supreme court said in a 4-2 decision issued Dec. 31, 2009” (O'reilly). Legalization of PAS in the above three states happened after lengthy debates and legal battles. The courts failed to answer some of the critical questions with respect to the importance and sustainability of human life on earth. Nobody can sustain his life infinitely. Death; natural or accidental, at some of point of time is a reality rather than a myth. Under such circumstances, state governments in the above three states decided to allow PAS or doctor aided death because of humanitarian considerations. The right to accept death in dignity is accepted as a natural right by the governments in these states. In the cases of PAS, patients themselves are committing the suicide even though the doctor is helping them. In other words, the doctor does not have direct responsibility in the cases of PAS. Moreover, the doctor can take PAS as part of the palliative care aspect of his profession. So, the doctors need not feel any guilty consciousness while performing PAS. Euthanasia Research & Guidance Organization (ERGO), Death with Dignity National Center, Compassion & Choices etc are some of the organizations which argue in favor of assisted suicide. To conclude, PAS is a controversial subject which involves lot of social and moral dimensions. The right to die can be considered as a natural right, at least in the case of patients who are terminally ill. Works Cited Gross, Jane. “Quiet Doctor Finds a Mission in Assisted Suicide Court Case”. 1997. Web 06 September 2011. “Facts and Statistics on Euthanasia”. 2010. Web 06 September 2011. “Jack Kevorkian”. 2002. Web 06 September 2011. O'reilly, Kevin B. “Physician-assisted suicide legal in Montana, court rules”. 2010. Web 06 September 2011. White, Hillary. “Washington Becomes 2nd US State with Legal Assisted Suicide”. 2008. Web 06 September 2011. Read More