Physician Assisted Suicide - Term Paper Example

PHYSICIAN-ASSISTED SUICIDE The society we live in determines and dictates our social characters and believes. The social and societal forces potentially affect our course of action and daily activities. Our personality and personal choice and highly influence by the social forces within our living areas. This covers from our socio-economic to political actions that are dictated by the surrounding we reside in. the society has a power to influence individual decisions. For instance, in choosing our marriage partners, we tend to believe that the power of ‘love’ is the sole foundation. However, research has established that it takes more than the mere emotional attachment. The choice of our marriage partners is influenced by social forces. Some of these forces that have a say in our personal choices include, economic and financial power, religion, family background, and education and other social determinants. Physician assisted suicide is the voluntary termination of one’s own life by administration of a lethal substance through the use of indirect or direct assistance of a physician. It is the practice of delivering a competent patient with a prescription for medication for the patient to utilize with the basic intention of ending his or her own life. Physician assisted suicide has both opponents and proponents. Some people argues that physician-assisted suicide is a violation of the fundamental tenet of medical profession and believes that medical practitioners should not assist in suicides because to do so in not compatible with the doctor’s function as a healer. Suffering has always been part of human existence. Since the beginning of medicine, requests to end suffering by means of death through physician-assisted suicide. Physician-assisted suicide in most occasions can be confused with euthanasia; however, they have both similarities while at the same time have some differences. Euthanasia is the act of bringing about the death of a hopelessly ill and suffering patient to a relatively and painless death. This research paper focuses on physician-assisted suicide as a medical issue and theories that attempts to explain this issue. In particular, this paper attempts to determine both the positives and the negative aspect of Physician-assisted suicide. Several questions arise in relation to physician-assisted suicide. But the most important one is whether physicians should be granted the power to intentionally end life of their patients. Well this paper will try to look at opposing and supportive arguments about physician-assisted suicide before making taking a personal position on this matter. A numbers of studies have shown that there is a significance differences in the rate of Physician-assisted suicide among different people of the society. Quite a large number of studies argue that 57% of the current doctors have received a request for physician-assisted suicide in some form or another. For instance a study by van Bruchem-van de Scheur et al (pg 1619), revealed that physicians should take responsibility in administering the euthanatics and these actions should not be left to the nurses. To some extent unrelieved physician suffering may have been greater in the past. However, modern medicine now has more skills and knowledge to relieve suffering than ever before. In simply terms, specialists in palliative care believe that if all patients had access to proper assessment and optimal supportive care and symptom control, the suffering of most patients with severe illness could be reduced adequately to eradicate their desire for hastened death. Even with the persistent of the desire to relieve pain, there exists other ways and avenues other than euthanasia or physician-assisted are available to remedy suffering and avoid prolonging life against the wish of the patient. Some physician-assisted suicide can be as a result of social, religious and cultural background. For instance, a study accorded by Ginn, Stephen et.al (pg 723) demonstrated that there is a strong link in the rate of physician-assisted suicide between different religions beliefs, in particular the Christians and non-Christians. According to the research findings, it was revealed that Christians are least likely to commit suicide as compared to the non-Christians. The two professors further attempted to explain these differences using the self-selection theory in which religion philosophy is founded on. As explains Professor Becker the fact that non-Christians are more prone to committing suicide than does the Christians, “but, whether that is because they act from a religious perspective is a different story. People might say that they become Protestants, not to commit suicide, of course, but they might elect to become Protestants for all kinds of reasons that happen to correlate with suicide behavior” (Lindblad et.al, 264) The Catholic Church is one of the numerous religious organizations that teach against assisted-suicide and euthanasia. They consider physician-assisted as crimes which no human law can claim to legitimize. The same opinion was held by sociologists who asserted that Catholicism teachings emphasized on the rewards and good fortunes that come from good work and punishments as the rewards for sinful acts. They also believed that good deeds do not necessarily earn God’s grace. As a result, sociologists believed that Catholic teaching and beliefs regarding suicide are more internalized and stricter than those of the non-Catholics, hence, lower rate of suicide. Physician-assisted suicide is a divisive topic, and hence the different interpretations of its meaning, morality and practice abound. Proponents of active physician-assisted suicide and a patient’s right to die, do not recognize the difference between passive and active physician-assisted. They claim that is hard to differentiate the withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment from confirmatory steps to quicken the death of a person. In both occasions, an individual intends to cause the patient’s death, acts out of a more honest and compassionate motives, and causes the same outcome. According to the proponents, giving a lethal injection to a person and turning off a life-sustaining respirator both have the same results morally. Diseases kill people in far more cruel ways than would any means of death that a doctor might provide for an irreversibly ill patient. For this reason, proponents of physician-assisted suicide admit that it is more like an action of assisting in suicide as entirely compatible with the physician’s duty to the patient. Opponents of physician-assisted on their part claim that it undermines the value of, and respect for, all human life; erodes trust in physicians; desensitizes society to killing and thereby acts a contradiction to various people’s religious beliefs. In addition, they argue that the nature and intentions of active and passive physician-assisted suicide are basically the same. With the active physician-assisted suicide, an individual directly intends to cause death and utilizes available means to achieve this end. In passive physician-assisted suicide, an individual decides against using a particular kind of treatment and directs that such treatment be withdrawn or withheld, accepting but not proposed the patient’s death, which is as a result of underlying illness. The ongoing debate about the legalization of active steps to end life intentionally end life as a means to terminate suffering remains contentious. According to the modern history, this topic comes up for intense attention sporadically. While people cite diverse reasons for opting to end their lives, Those suffering from a terminal diseases characteristically state that a serious disease or disorder has adversely affected their quality of live to the extent that they do not enjoy living any longer. The additional risk of misunderstanding that overrides the patient’s wishes ensures that there is currently more support for physician-assisted suicide as opposed to other life ending means such as euthanasia. Nonetheless, it is always true that both requests occur and doctors need to design means and ways on how to respond to either of the requests. As it is revealed by the current debates, it is apparent that two principles on which all organized medicine agree that: doctors have a responsibility to ease pain and suffering and to encourage the dignity of dying patients in their care The principle of patient bodily integrity requires that physicians must respect patients’ competent decisions to forgo life-sustaining treatment (Lindblad et al, 260) As opposed to the Physician-assisted suicide debate, the right to analgesic care is uniformly recognized. In the United States of America, the Supreme Court justice concurring opinions supported the right of every American citizens to receive quality analgesic care. The topic of physician-assisted suicide in the in many countries has been influenced by several medical practices in other countries. For instance the legalization of both euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide in the Netherland has been of great influence some developed and developing countries. In the Netherland, the physician assisted suicide is conducted within strict guidelines that incorporate the following requirements: the patient must be experiencing intolerable pain and suffering, there should be voluntary request from the patient before the suicide is undertaken, each and every available and viable options to treatment must be explored before exploring the suicide option, and finally the physician must consult with another independent physician before proceeding with the suicide mission. A study in the Netherland indicated that 300 deaths (about 0.2%) were as a result of physician-assisted suicide (van Bruchem-van de Scheur et.al, 1620). The field of medicine and especially the concept of physician-assisted suicide have been characterized by studies by various scholars. One of the scholars who have made much contribution in this field is Derek Humphry. Humphry is a former journalist who is the founder of Hemlock society in 1980. The organization continues to advocate for the right of incurably ill individual to choose voluntary physician-assisted suicide. Humphry has written several books on the subject of voluntary physician-assisted suicide. He presents physician-assisted suicide as a dignified and a merciful option for people whole illness have eroded their quality of life beyond hope. He points out that physician-assisted suicide is helpful in daily lives as doctors make decisions concerning the end of life. Others, including some medical ethicists, go so far as to claim that a decision to withhold oxygen, antibiotics, or nutrition from incurably ill patient is no less active a form of physician-assisted suicide than is administering a fatal dose of morphine. According to him, Humphry see the common practice of withholding life support is more vulnerable to potential abuse than the act of physician-assisted suicide. Physician-assisted suicide is less visible and therefore easily regulated in term of decision. Critics of physician-assisted suicide argue through the use of familiar slippery slope, proposing that once the legalization of the physician-assisted suicide, other forms of euthanasia will more likely be practiced as well. They picture the idea of physician-assisted suicide as potentially leading to scenarios whereby chronically ill, elderly and handicapped people, along side others, are killed through non-voluntary, active euthanasia. This argument is related to the opinion that widespread practice of physician-assisted suicide might result to the death of those individuals whose intolerable suffering is caused by treatable depression. Basically, according to the critics, terminally ill people often suffer from depression, and that in spite of their illness, the feeling of hopelessness can sometimes be addressed through some application of counseling and antidepressant medication means of treatment. The basic claim behind arguments for physician-assisted suicide is that many people who prefer it are experiencing excruciating physical pain. This conventional wisdom is summarized by the 1996 decision of the USA court of appeal for the 9th circuit supporting a constitutional wisdom. This is line with this famous quote: “Americans are living longer, and when they finally succumb to illness, lingering longer, either in great pain or in astuporous, semi-comatose condition that results from the infusion of vast amounts of painkilling medications”( Tamayo-Velázquez et.al, 690) However, this argument is false at least according to some studies. Several studies carried based on interviews of patients with AIDS, cancer and other chronically disease have indicated that patients who opt to physician-assisted suicide or euthanasia tend not to be motivated by pain. According to these studies, only 22%of the patients who died between 2009 and 2009 by physician assisted suicide in 3 US states of Washington, Oregon and Montana, where the practice is legalized, were in great pain or were in afraid of pain, according to the physicians who conducted the operations (Hosseini, 206). In the late 90s, when physician-assisted suicide was briefly legalized in Australia, among the seven patients who received physician-assisted suicide, three reported no pain, and the pain of the remaining four patients was adequately controlled by medication. The primary motive of patients who prefers physician- assisted suicide is not to escape physical pain but psychological distress. Psychological distresses are the drivers are hopelessness, depression and fear of loss of autonomy and control. In a report published in 2005, Dutch researchers followed 138 incurably ill cancer patients and found that depressed patients were 4 times more likely to request physician-assisted suicide. Nearly half of those appealed to physician-requested suicide were depressed. Typically, the response to suicidal feelings linked to hopelessness and depression is not to give people the means to end their precious lives but offer them care and proper counseling. There are several myths that have been linked to the concept of physician-assisted suicide. These myths include: Advanced technology The myth surrounding physician-assisted suicide in relation to technology is that the important result of a high-technology medical culture that can sustain life even after people have become incontinent, debilitated, bound and incoherent to a machine. It is the unavoidable consequence of changes in the causes of death, development of new technologies and advancements in medical science. If history can be linked to the interest physician-assisted suicide, then it is the rise of individualistic strains of thought that overrides the personal interest, but not the development of high-technology in the medical field. Mass appeal This second myth states that physician-assisted suicide will improve the end of life for everyone. After all, everyone is vulnerable to death, and legalized assisted suicide would give way for any person to avoid an agonizingly painful death. However, the fact is very few people take advantage of physician assisted suicide even in areas where the practice in legalized. For instance, in the Netherland where physician-assisted suicide has been legalized for last two decades, less than 3% of patients die by this means (Hicks, 39). For most patients, it will have no impact on improving the ends of their lives. Legalize physician-assisted suicide benefits the well-educated, well off, typically suffering from cancer, who are used to basically controlling everything in their lives. On the other hand, the poor, less educated and dying patients who are seen as a burden to their societies, are most likely to be abused if physician-assisted is legalized (Tamayo-Velázquez et.al, 680). A good death Many proponents of physician-assisted suicide claim that it is a quick, painless and guaranteed type of death. However, there is no medical prove attached to this claim. It turns out that complications may arise during the process of assisted suicide. For instance, among 15% cases in the Netherland study, 7% of the cases vomited up their medications. Patients did not die and eventually died after a very long time after the doctors interventions (Tamayo-Velázquez et.al, 660). Death is the unavoidable fate of every human being. When faced with death, the question that may linger in your mind is whether or not a third party should be allowed to intentionally terminate life of a patient or help that patient to commit suicide. Many have argued for or against the concept physician-assisted suicide. After critically analyzing arguments from both sides, I have come to a position; despite the positives of the physician-assisted suicides the, the negatives overweigh the positives as far as the society in concerned. Even though, in most cases it is carried out after the consent of the patient, the appeal of physician-assisted suicide is based on a fantasy. It is apparent that instead of attempting to legalize physician-assisted suicide, people should focus on their energies on what really matters in improving care for the dying. This can be undertaken by ensuring that all patients can openly talk with their families and physicians about their wishes and have access to standardize painkilling or hospital case before they suffer needless medical procedure. The real goal should be a good health for all the patients whether they are suffering from chronic diseases or not. Work cited Ginn, Stephen; Price, Annabel; Rayner, Lauren; Owen, Gareth S.; Hayes, Richard D.; Hotopf, Matthew; Lee, William. Senior Doctors Opinions of Rational Suicide. Journal of Medical Ethics. Dec2011, Vol. 37 Issue 12, p723-726. Hicks, Madelyn Hsiao-Rei. BMC Family Practice. Physician-Assisted Suicide: A Review of The Literature Concerning Practical And Clinical Implications For UK Doctors. 2006, Vol. 7, p39-17. 17p. 3 Charts. DOI: 10.1186/1471-2296-7-39. Hosseini, Hengameh M. Review of European Studies. Ethics, the Illegality of Physician Assisted Suicide in the United States, and the Role and Ordeal of Dr. Jack Kevorkian before His Death. Dec2012, Vol. 4 Issue 5, p203-209. 7p Lindblad, Anna; Löfmark, Rurik; Lynöe, Niels. Scandinavian Journal of Public Health. Would Physician-Assisted Suicide Jeopardize Trust In The Medical Services? An Empirical Study Of Attitudes Among The General Public In Sweden. May2009, Vol. 37 Issue 3, p260-264. 5p. DOI: 10.1177/1403494808098918. Tamayo-Velázquez, María-Isabel; Simón-Lorda, Pablo; Cruz-Piqueras, Maite. Nursing Ethics. Euthanasia And Physician-Assisted Suicide: Knowledge, Attitudes And Experiences Of Nurses In Andalusia (Spain). Sep2012, Vol. 19 Issue 5, p677-691. van Bruchem-van de Scheur, G. G.; van der Arend, Arie J. G.; Huijer Abu-Saad, Huda; van Wijmen, Frans C. B.; Spreeuwenberg, Cor; ter Meulen, Ruud H. J. Euthanasia and assisted suicide in Dutch hospitals: the role of nurses. Journal of Clinical Nursing. Jun2008, Vol. 17 Issue 12, p1618-1626. 9p. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2702.2007.02145.x Read More