Physician-Assisted Suicide - Essay Example

27 July 2007 Philosophy & Physician Assisted Suicide Physician assisted suicide is one of the most controversial problems in medical practice and philosophy. Critics underline that there is no right or wrong opinion about active euthanasia because much depends upon the conditions and causes which force people to look for this problem-solving method. A utilitarian approach takes into account the state's interests, the sanctity of life and personal interests of a patient. Thesis Euthanasia ought to be legal as an exceptional measure to prevent enormous physical and psychological sufferings in the case of an incurable disease. The utilitarian approach states that the value and worth of the action is determined by its consequences and overall good. The utilitarian approach specifies what are to count as the best consequences. Ethics and medical ethics as a part of it is aimed to save a "life" and not allow patient to "die". Life is valuable: it cannot be restored or reproduced. In this case, it is morally wrong to deprive a person a chance to live (Dowbiggin 37). All scientific and medical innovations and discoveries become useless as well as medicine itself if we follow the concept of "God's will". In terms of rational legitimacy, physician assisted suicide and active voluntary euthanasia ought to be legal if it causes happiness and the good to others. In this case, physician assisted suicide and active voluntary euthanasia are ought to be legal because financial burden and moral sufferings caused by a terminally ill increase sufferings, and death is in the best interest of society. It is right to let a person to die when living would make no one happy and someone very unhappy. It is important to note that it is more unethical to allw relatives to suffer with mortally ill hopeless members of the family (Dowbiggin 38). For instance, in some cases of terminal cancer palliative care is the only possible way to prevent sufferings of patients. For instance, there are some cases in medical practice, when patients remain in a "persistent vegetative state" and will never alive. Geisler (1990) explains that: the term "coma" refers to a condition in which the eyes are closed, the person cannot be aroused, and there is no sleep/wake cycle. A vegetative state is a condition in which there is no awareness including awareness of pain and suffering, no rationality or emotionality ... In cases like these, the use of medical technologies raises questions about the moral appropriateness of death (63). Active euthanasia can be used as the nly possible tool to relieve sufferings and pain, and as the best interest of the family and the patient. In this situation, the problem is that it is impossible to develop the ethical and moral law which will be suitable for all the cases and can be applied in all situations (Garrett et al 28). Contemporary practice with fatally ill patient has sometimes led to the prosecution of the medical staff involved, although a line of jurisprudence has emerged according to which it may be permissible to treat some patients for dying, rather than to intervene to keep them alive. The main question and argument against euthanasia is "who should accept a decision to "kill" Some critics state that patients who want to pass away should be allowed to do so (Garrett et al 29). On the other hand, this way can be used by physicians and relatives to "kill" patients. For instance, "The Oregon victory was followed by referendum defeats in Michigan and Maine, and a 1997 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that denied a constitutional right to physician-assisted suicide" (Dowbiggin 163). In this case, strict control and legal rules should maximize and ensure the good and happiness. In spite of the fact that only God can decides when the life should end, many seriously ill patients have a fundamental right to stop suffering and pass away without pain. At one time or another in their lives, most people reflect on their relationship to a higher order of existence, whether one perceives it as an eternal force, the universe around, a defined spiritual entity, or a concept that answers to a basic human need for a sense of order behind the turbulent appearance of everyday life (Garrett et al 52). In terms of the utilitarian approach, sufferings and pain decrease common good and happiness. Also, it is unethical to force patients to suffer, but it is more unethical to deprive them a chance to survive because of speculative ethical arguments created by a group of people. "The right action is that which promotes in oneself and others what we may call a higher happiness, one which stresses self-development and the fostering of the distinctively rational nature of human beings" (Telfer n.d.). If the harm is the same and the victim is the same, and the victim is no less innocent, then surely the deed is just as wrong. The main consequences of this approach are that contemporary practice with fatally ill patient has sometimes led to the prosecution of the medical staff involved, although a line of jurisprudence has emerged according to which it may be permissible to treat some patients for dying, rather than to intervene to keep them alive. In term of the utilitarian approach, active euthanasia can help patients to avoid pain, it will help them to avoid suicide (which is also morally wrong), and secondly it will free their family from enormous psychological burden. All in all, patients should have the right to choose the death if their conditions are painful and they suffer from terminal diseases. It is unethical to kill people but its more unethical to deprive them of a chance to pass away with dignity. Society has entered new era of freedom of rights and choice, so it should review and revalue moral norms and ethics applied to medical practice, but it does not mean assisted suicides and violation of universal virtues of life and human existence. "Voluntary Euthanasia must increase personal autonomy, in that it gives people some control over when their live ends" (Hooker 27). This viewpoint accepts liberty as a fundamental right. A patient should have a right to live for the goods of his/her family members and the society. Legal activists state that patient's right to chose is to a fundamental human right. People are entitled to the control over their own bodies. But they do not take into account unethical behavior. From moral side, killing becomes morally wrong and unacceptable in medical practice. It means that inappropriate decision or wrong diagnosis can result in the death of "innocent" people. At one time or another in their lives, most people reflect on their relationship to a higher order of existence, whether one perceives it as an eternal force, the universe around, a defined spiritual entity, or a concept that answers to a basic human need for a sense of order behind the turbulent appearance of everyday life. Following Garrett et al (2000), "whereas law is largely concerned with the public good and the protection of individual rights, ethics not only includes this topic but goes beyond them to look at the obligations of individuals to themselves, as well as to the others and to society" (2). In sum, euthanasia should be legalized order to maximize common good and allow patients to choose between life and death. The way in which the choices that assisted conception affords are formulated, will affect thinking about euthanasia. And the way people think about euthanasia will affect other ideas about relatedness between human beings. And the way in which society thinks about value of human life will affect the way in which we think about the relationship between individuals, groups and the State. Accepted on the national level, euthanasia will support human rights and liberty. In general, how a society and medial staff respond in the face of legal rules capabilities will be a moral guidepost indicating how society should devise and implement the law. Works Cited Dowbiggin, I. A Merciful End: The Euthanasia Movement in Modern America. Oxford University Press, 2003. Garrett, T.M., Baillie, H.W., Garrett, R.M. Heath Care Ethics. Prentice Hall. 2000. Hooker, B. Rule-Utilitarianism and Euthanasia, 2005. pp. 22=31. Telfer, E. Philosophical approaches to the dilemma of death with dignity. N.d. Read More