Pros and Cons of Physician-Assisted Suicide - Coursework Example

Arguments For and Against Physician-Assisted Suicide INTRODUCTION Legalizing the practices of physician-assisted suicide (PAS) or aid in dying inevitably generates two divided groups between proponent and opponent. PAS is loosely defined as the physician administering or prescribing active voluntary euthanasia. The proponent of PAS generally argues that aid in dying is a “positive good” and an inherent right. On the other side of the scale, the opponent of PAS broadly asserts that legalizing it – aside from its unconstitutionality -- “shrink[s] from endorsing” such practices. This paper explores the arguments for and against the legalization of physician-assisted suicide. MINUSCULE HISTORICAL BACKGROUND The overwhelming bias of self-treatment using the advances of modern medicine creates wide-ranging and rising fear or disquiet (Salem). The prospect of losing control over one’s own dying process is more frightening than death itself. In response against the sway of medicine, up-to-date policies, health care workers, and other relevant venues were founded on the right to pursue medical treatment aimed primarily at protecting patients. From historical perspective, physician-assisted suicide is one more “necessary step” in this dying process (Salem). METHOD AND PROCEDURE Few requirements must be met before the patient undergoes the physician-assisted-suicide procedure. Like the Oregon Death with Dignity Act, the procedure is thoroughly elaborated and consistent with the quality standards of “voluntariness” (Lee). These requirements include, among others, two oral and two written requests for lethal medication, a determination that the patient is capable in decision-making, and the opportunity to rescind the request at any given time. When everything is carried out without the patient’s objection, the Physician dispenses lethal drugs to him or her to be used in ending his or her life (Lee 17) UNDERLYING REASONS The conjunction of advanced medical and cultural trends is given emphasize by some authors (Salem 30). In theory, majority of people who favor physician-assisted suicide support or subscribe to it for reasons of free choice, individual rights, and moral autonomy. Practically speaking, however, the “heartwrenching case” is the underlying reason why there is a widespread support for Physician-assisted suicide (Kamisar). For instance, a terminally ill patient enduring the last stages of ALS (Lou Gehrig’s disease) who begs for immediate and painless death is truly troublesome. This patient, in fact, is barely able to speak. RIGHT TO DIE The aid-in-dying practices, for better or for worse, are expressions of the patient’s self-determination or the “right to die” (Salem). The right to die with assistance is a fundamental right (Feinberg). The fundamental reason is that it is part of the nation’s history and is implicit in the ordered liberty concept. This fundamental right is the person’s right to discontinue lifesaving medical treatment, even though this patient will eventually die upon ending his or her treatment. The right to die developed as a judicial response to the patient’s wish to make critical decisions concerning their own treatment. In addition, physician-assisted suicide is an “ultimate brake” on the uncontrolled use of modern medicine in ending one’s life (Feinberg). LEGAL AND RHETORICAL ISSUES Paradoxically, the “right to die” is also favorable to the opponent of PAS in other factual contexts (Feinberg). In Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Department of Health, Cruzan presented the issue whether a state can prohibit the withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment. Nancy Beth Cruzan, the plaintiffs’ daughter, slipped into a vegetative state after remaining in a three-week coma (Feinberg). Indeed, the U.S. Supreme Court acknowledges the fundamental aspect of the right to die. However, this Court determined that there was no clear and convincing evidence that mentally-incompetent Nancy would have desired to terminate the lifesaving procedures. Thus, the Court did not permit Nancy’s parents to terminate her lifesaving treatment. Moreover, it has been argued that legalizing the PAS could result to social pressures compelling the old people to exercise this option (Lee). Bernard suggested that the right to die may become the “duty to die” (qtd. in Lee). The individual’s self-determination could be a fatal deception. The seemingly autonomous request for aid in dying, for instance, will either be subtly or not subtly influenced by outside force. RELIGIOUS MATTERS The many world religion have been the strongest critic against the practice of aid in dying. Christians, particularly, have argued that it is God alone who has the power to decide to end a human life. God alone gives breath and life to humans as an “inalienable loan” (qtd. in Lee 17). In the midst of suffering, hope is possible in all kinds of life’s situations. MORAL CONCERN “Slippery slope” argument is morally reprehensible (Lee). This argument states that physician-assisted suicide invites abuses, such as physicians deciding upon themselves to end the lives of his or her terminally ill patients. Slippery slope is associated to nonvoluntary euthanasia. In Netherlands, for example, there are cases of euthanasia undertaken by physicians without the explicit consent of the patient (qtd. in Lee). Others simply believe that aid in dying practices is “inherently immoral” (Kamisar). RESPONSES The opponents’ frequent argument against legalizing physician-assisted suicide is the need to intervene in preventing “self-destructive behavior.” Such argument is with overtones of paternalism (Lee). Furthermore, there is no convincing argument to justify placing legal roadblocks in the way of terminally ill yet mentally competent patients who desire to end their suffering by ending their lives; especially so when such decisions are made after thoughtful and thorough deliberation in an environment devoid of social pressure. The Oregon law is clear in stipulating that those contemplating to end their lives should not be under any pressure (Lee). It is argued that the provision wherein the physician informs the patient’s alternatives and the fifteen-day waiting period signifies that aid in dying is a matter of individual choice rather than a decision compelled by social pressure. Slippery slope argument could be dismissed if there are rigorous safeguards in prescribing aid in dying such as those incorporated in the Oregon law. Not voluntary euthanasia can be prevented by ensuring that euthanasia only transpires at the request of the terminally ill patient. Most importantly, there is a “firewall” in Oregon law (Lee). In that law is a provision stating that lethal drugs should be self-administered. If that restriction is thoroughly enforced, not voluntary euthanasia is avoided. CONCLUSION The proponent and opponent of PAS continue to debate over legalizing or not legalizing the practices of the aid in dying. The two central themes of their argument are the basis and consequences of legalizing PAS. Proponent firmly stands that the “right to die” is a fundamental human right. Paradoxically, the “right to die” is also favorable to the opponent. Amidst the positive good, the opponent fears its negative effect. By and large, PAS issue encompasses legal, religious, and moral questions. Works Cited Feinberg, Brett. “The Court Upholds a State Law Prohibiting Physician-Assisted Suicide.” Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 88.3 (1998): 847-876. Print. Kamisar, Yale. “Physician-Assisted Suicide: the Problems Presented by the Compelling, Heartwrenching Case.” Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 88.3 (1998): 1121-1146. Print. Lee, Daniel E. “Physician-Assisted Suicide: A Conservative Critique of Intervention.” The Hastings Center Report 33.1 (2003): 17+. Print. Salem, Tania. “Physician-Assisted Suicide.” The Hastings Center Report 29.3 (1999): 30. Print. Read More