The Controversy Surrounding Assisted Suicide in the United States - Research Paper Example

The Controversy Surrounding Assisted Suicide in the United s. Introduction Assisted suicide and euthanasia often interchange as similar words in meaning but truth is that they differ slightly. Assisted suicide is the intentional and direct induction of death to another person like giving a lethal jab while euthanasia is indirect but still intentional induction of death to someone by assisting him or her in committing suicide. Either of these terminologies apply mostly in medical scenarios in what is described as ‘ending suffering that is untreatable’ to give the suffering patients a ‘compassionate death’ (Marker 2013). According to Friedman (9), several circumstances may push one to consider and even beg for assisted suicide. Such include a medical condition that no matter what measures try to keep them normal and continue living, the result is eventual death. If the journey towards the end of their lives is not painful or the pain is bearable, then suicide is not an option. However, in case the person stands zero chances of surviving and the waiting period tends to be unbearably painful, application for merciful killing is a better option. Such conditions include: Terminal diseases that will eventually claim the individual’s life despite medication such as cancer, HIV/AIDS, and Hepatitis B. Progressive degenerative conditions only treatable for sometime before the medication becomes ineffective such as Alzheimer’s disease and multiple sclerosis. Fatal accidents or injuries that cause severe or permanent damage to vital organs such as the brain and spinal cord. The practice Assisted suicide is an act of the twentieth century, with its history dating back to the 1900’s, in the paradigmatic period when medics introduced the thought of alleviating suffering by large numbers of patients with terminal illnesses such as cancer (Pappas 2). The first proposal in the United States to legalize assisted suicide dates back to 1905 in Ohio. It was stating that, “if one of legal and sound mind is fatally hurt or so ill that recovery is impossible, is suffering great physical pain without hope or relief, his physician… may ask him or her in the presence of three witnesses, if he or she wants to be killed” (Pappas 3). However, the bill failed amidst heated debates of its practicability arguing that the act was wholly unjustified and one prone to misuse by doctors with ‘grades not above common hangmen’ (Pappas, 4). It was not until the early 90’s that the Suicide Act of 1961 ruled out suicide as a crime that assisted suicide gained momentum but only as a medical prescription guided by strict regulations. The controversies The issue of legalizing or rather not criminalizing suicide did not quell the debate of the issue amicably. Sympathizers of assisted suicide claim it the right of an individual to choose what to do with their lives if they do not cause any harm to others. Suicide is part of what one can do with their lives, and anyone can commit it whenever or however they wish to. However, there are some incapacitated by circumstances such as disability, mental disorder, or disease and are unable to do it on their own. These scenarios lead to the big query, should they get the assistance to terminate their lives? In addition, there is an assumption that we have an obligation to lift the suffering off our fellow humankind, and observe their dignity as well. There are bedridden people in hospitals undergoing suffering from excruciating pain and other sufferings that deny then the ability to function as humans in dignified manners. Their lives keep degrading and deteriorating. The big questions remains unanswered as to whether terminating their lives is better than keeping them in their suffering without any hopes of ever reverting to normality (Claire & Manuel). For those against the legalization of assisted suicide, to them assisting in suicide is going against the duty that we as a society have of opposing legislations that pose risks to innocent lives. They therefore oppose any law sanctioning assisted suicide as it poses as a threat. In their argument, they say ending one’s life and branding it as assistance or merciful killing is the same as ending the life of someone whose life appears worthless to society. Furthermore, it opens the channel for one’s relatives to persuade them to ask for voluntary death should they perceive of them as inconveniencing. In addition, one might sign to request merciful death and later change their minds while in a condition that they cannot make their decisions known. Will that not violate their right to live? The greatest emphasis lies on what criteria are going to apply in determining whether a certain life is quality or not (Claire & Manuel). One area that attracts a lot of debate when it comes to assisted suicide is how justified it is when used on patient with mental disorders. Humphry (2006) gives the reasons as to why this practice on the mentally disturbed should remain illegal and restricted. For one, he says that terminating a patient’s life is considerable only in instances where terminal illness or unrecoverable conditions appear. For one, it is possible to treat mental problems using psychotherapy or medication. In another argument, he says that while a terminally ill person does not have the ability to commit suicide, a mental patient has all it takes to end their lives if need be. In addition, the number of mental health patients who commit suicide annually as compared to those that die of natural causes is quite low. On average, thirty-thousand mental illness related suicides occur against two and a quarter million who die of natural causes. This means that if all patients of mental distress underwent this act, the number will rise above the thirty thousand, meaning it results in killing of innocent lives that do not need to die. Further conflict arises from development of public policies regarding this issue that base their arguments on metaphysical roots and religion. These debates rely on varying understandings of ownership, equality, justice, and freedom over one’s life plus the significance of the universe, God’s existence, as well as god’s expectations of one with regard to their life and that of others. Similar to abortion, physician assisted suicide remains a form of murder or assisted murder to the religious understanding (Kopelman 31). Kopelman (38) states that although orthodox Jews and Christians should tolerate the acts of physician-assisted suicide, it does not mean they accept it. Just as abortion is morally disruptive, this act gives rise to two perceptions; it will be either a moral breach or obligation. The result is some physicians distancing themselves from it resulting into controversies by those in support of assisted suicide as to why they shun away from inducing dignified deaths. On the contrary, it is logical that this practice is necessary to some extent and this in turn generates its own disagreements, condemnations, and more controversies. Financial controversies: is legalization of physician-assisted suicide going to save money? In the current day, there is worry over the status of health care financing with assumptions flying about that a great deal (about twenty-seven to thirty percent) of the American health dollar is dedicated for health care in the end cycle of many lives, and that the expenditures increase as patients approach death. Speculations arise that physician-assisted suicide is a direct attempt to control hefty end of life expenditures. Furthering the speculation is the Supreme Court’s notion aiming at legalization of this act claiming it a potential move to save costs and many families might resort to it in reducing or avoiding the overwhelming financial burden that accumulates during the end cycle of patients’ lives (Goldstein 328). However, research contradicts the speculation of reducing cost of medicare if it becomes a legal practice. According to Goldstein (329), about sixty-two thousand Americans would opt for physician-assisted suicide if it were legal. This translates to about six hundred and twenty seven million US dollars, a sum representing zero point zero seven percent of the total expenditure of the current US healthcare, a sum quite insignificant to define any improvement in terms of cost. There is a danger related to legalizing of assisted suicide concerning the abuse of the practice by doctors. Mitchell (67) defines this danger commonly known as the slippery rope: the duty of doctors in the human entity is to heal and like any other profession, difficulties arise and incapacitate them at times. This results in their inability to heal a certain condition. The danger in it is that they may feel at a loss and it may lead to their limitation and failure in their professions. In recent times, doctors faced by inability to handle certain conditions openly confessed and surrendered without any fears of limitations and left the patient to the care of their relatives. It was upon the relatives to decide what to do with their suffering patient. If we imagine that assisted suicide is legal, meaning a doctor can cure as well as kill, then doctor is likely to resort to killing the patient that they cannot cure to keep their failure from confronting them. It is natural to feel pain after a medical condition outsmarts a skilled practitioner with all their knowledge and skill, and any means that can reverse the feeling is a potential adaptation by them. It is therefore a big risk to expose doctors to assisted suicide as they might lose the dignity and value for human life after being accustomed to terminating some lives without fear of facing any action by the law. How sure are we going to be that doctors will not conduct unauthorized or involuntary euthanasia in order to protect their careers? Conclusion The idea of assisting suffering patients in committing suicide as a way of taking their suffering away is one that is hard to take a stand on. Nobody wants to undergo years of excruciating pain on hospital beds without the assurance of ever gaining back his or her stable health. In one way or another, terminating such sufferings with the owner’s consent is a potential solution to them but it should not be a decision that is arrived at fast. It is important to consider other options before settling on it, and proper criteria put in place to determine whether a condition requires suicidal assistance or not. We therefore cannot point accusing fingers at those sympathizing with the legalization of assisted suicide, but the limits and ethics of the act have to be of critical consideration. Quill (15), states that human life is sacred and equals nothing in the whole universe. Therefore, if the practice is legalized, strict regulations must accompany it to prevent and protect the lives of patients from breaches or malicious medical practitioners who might decide to use it otherwise. Works cited Claire Andre and Manuel Velasquez. Assisted Suicide: A Right or a Wrong? 2010. Web. 31 Oct 2013. Friedman, Mark D. Assisted Suicide. Oxford: Raintree, 2012. Print. Goldstein, Myrna C, and Mark A. Goldstein. Controversies in the Practice of Medicine. Westport, Conn: Greenwood Press, 2001. Print. Humphry, Derek. Why assisted suicide for the mentally troubled is so problematic. 18 Aug 2006.Web. 31 Oct 2013. Kopelman, Loretta M., and Ville K. A. De. Physician-assisted Suicide. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic, 2001. Print. Marker, L., Rita. Euthanasia, Assisted Suicide & Health Care Decisions – Part 1. 2013. Web. 31 Oct 2013. Mitchell, John B. Understanding Assisted Suicide: Nine Issues to Consider. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2007. Print. Pappas, Demetra M. The Euthanasia/assisted-Suicide Debate. Santa Barbara, Calif: Greenwood, 2012. Print. Quill, Timothy E, and Margaret P. Battin. Physician-assisted Dying: The Case for Palliative Care and Patient Choice. Baltimore, Md: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2004. Print. Read More