Euthanasia an Assisted Suicide - Case Study Example

Euthanasia – an Assisted Suicide Introduction Assisted suicide is also referred to as “mercy killing.” It is defined as a form of Euthanasia, a term meaning “good death” and is used to describe a situation when a incurably ill patient is given a fatal dose of medicine, is allowed to expire without someone actively participating in the procedure such as being taken off a life support device or by resuscitation. A physicians’ participation could be to either administer a fatal cocktail of drugs with the explicit intention of ending a person’s life or by inserting a needle into the terminally ill person’s vain who then activates a lever which dispenses the lethal dose (Dyer, 2008). Doctors, philosophers and attorneys have debated the concept of assisted suicide from the beginnings of mankind but the broad public conversation concerning its legalization is only about four decades old. Those who favor the idea of assisted suicide think individual freedoms involving personal autonomy which are experienced throughout life should not suddenly end at the end of life. They also reason that the unanimous consensus of allowing suffering animals a humane method of death when necessary should be applied to people too. Those opposed to assisted suicide contend that it is a ‘slippery slope’ which, if legalized, would encourage ever-increasing incidents of coerced suicide, members of the dying persons pressuring them to die for financial considerations. Furthermore, legalizing the procedure would diminish the urgency to create new medications designed to extend life. Physicians recite the Hippocratic Oath which prohibits them from performing this procedure. Personal Rights The sovereignty of a person, their ability to make decisions concerning their own well-being, is taken away by disallowing the right to end their own life. Self-determination, an essential right enjoyed during life, ends near the end of life, just when a person needs it the most. Add to this the further indignation of coercive life-prolonging measures imposed in a way also insensitive to the person’s sense of autonomy. Assisted suicide should not be illegal and well beyond a debated topic. American citizens are endowed with inalienable rights but evidently not the right to ‘die with dignity.’ The act of assisted suicide is not prohibited by the Constitution. It is mainly religious zealots who object on moral grounds. They consider the procedure is man “playing God” with life and death situations. Somehow, they can reconcile high-tech life-savings procedures employed to extend life beyond its natural course not “playing God.” The debate concerning assisted suicide has moved past the sphere of the unconscious person and into the sphere of patient rights. Drawing from common law present in most jurisdictions, terminally ill patients who demonstrate mental competence may request the withholding of life-savings methods even though this choice will result in their demise. This common law right is founded in a person’s right of self-determination in addition to the right to not be subject to unwanted, non-consensual, offensive touching by another person. These regional common law rights also have constitutional underpinnings at the state and federal levels. Personal rights on the federal level stem from the U.S. Constitution, emanating from the liberty provision of the Due Process Clause within the Fourteenth Amendment. On the state level, for example in New Hampshire’s state Constitution, the rights are found in part I, articles 2 and 3. These sections have been widely interpreted as guaranteeing that “individuals have a constitutional right to privacy, arising from a high regard for human dignity and self-determination, and that this right may be asserted to prevent unwanted infringements of bodily integrity.” (Dangelantonio, 2008). Existing Laws Establish a Humane Precedent It became legal during the 1970’s to make ‘living wills’ which permits a person to decline ‘heroic’ life saving medical efforts if they became incapacitated and could survive only by artificial measures. Put another way, a living will gives a patient’s next of kin the legally recognized right to instruct doctors to ‘pull the plug’ if that doctor agrees the patient’s condition is beyond hope. The concept of the living will is broadly accepted today. Unfortunately, a living will does not remove the possibility of patients being kept alive by artificial means for extremely long periods of time in an enduring vegetative, unconscious state because there were usually no provisions for withholding medication or nutrition. This omission has been essentially fixed by utilizing power of attorney. However this has its drawbacks too in that “there is frequently no room to designate the individual’s wishes to any great extent,” (“End of Life”, 2005). Oregon is the only U.S. state to allow assisted suicide. Three countries, Switzerland, The Netherlands and Belgium allow it as well. The Oregon law met a challenge in the U.S. Supreme Court in 2006 and, by a vote of six to three in a conservative leaning court, was upheld. Former President Bush tried to derail the Oregon law permitting assisted suicide stating it wasn’t a “legitimate medical purpose.” However, the high court justices were unconvinced by Bush’s argument. (Singer, 2003). The Oregon laws are fashioned after The Netherlands and are intended to make certain that second opinions by qualified, objective physicians have been consulted and there is a certainty death will occur within a reasonable period of time following the procedure’s request. Moreover, the patient must make numerous appeals for the assisted suicide procedure over a lengthy period of time and must be willing to give the overdose of drugs to themselves. Assisted suicide was legalized in Switzerland during WWII. The extraordinary circumstances in Switzerland hold that assisted suicide is permitted as long as a doctor is not an active part of the procedure. It cannot be administered by doctors or anyone else besides the patient themselves. In addition to legalization, Switzerland has established three institutions to assist terminally ill patients. These organizations provide patients with counseling in addition to the drugs needed for the procedure. However, lethal injections are not permitted. Belgium legalized assisted suicide in 2002. Every case must be evaluated by two doctors before the procedure is performed by either injection or ingestion. In The Netherlands, assisted suicide has been legal for nine years but has been tolerated for three decades. (“Suffer”, 2006). The state of Oregon and nations outside the U.S. has shown compassionate laws can be crafted that allows patients to retain their dignity at the end of their life. Counter Claim Those opposed to legalizing assisted suicide correctly claim that the procedure would violate the Hippocratic Oath. They also claim it would cause human life to be devaluated, that life in the U.S. is held as sacred more so than in most other nations therefore the choices of other nations make regarding assisted suicide are irrelevant. Legalization could cause the assisted suicide of people whose medical conditions are not necessarily incurable. Though most physicians are principled but all are not. It is well known that some make their living writing prescriptions for drug addicts. ‘Diet pills’ are prescribed to ‘patients’ who are not over-weight but are merely feeding their habit and the prescription writer is their facilitator. While only a relative few doctors prescribe illegal drugs it happens all too often all over the country. It’s not difficult to envision a minority of doctors being persuaded by monetary gains to assist in the deaths of people who are temporarily unhappy with their life due to psychological or emotional reasons. A doctor writing illicit prescriptions is appalling but assisting in suicides is much worse. A person can choose to stop abusing drugs but death is irreversible. While the vast majority of doctors practice in an ethical manner and dedicates their lives to caring for patients, profit is the only motive for insurance companies. If assisted suicide were made legal insurance companies would have plenty of motivation to pressure doctors into “pulling the plug” of patients who are costing those companies many thousands of dollars due to their hospital stay. Insurance companies have plainly demonstrated their callousness by dropping expensive patients and not covering patients with pre-existing conditions. (Messerli, 2007). There are numerous people who have spoken in opposition to Oregon’s assisted suicide law, including Kay Olson (2007) and Lauren O’Brien (2005). These objections are typically concerning a minority of abuses within the system or isolated cases in which therapy might have been employed to avert mistakes. O’Brien demonstrates how a prominent writer might have unintentionally cut their brilliant career short had legal assisted suicide been available at the time he suffered a paralyzing mishap. Olson details the situation of a non-verbal woman who was not competent enough to argue for her best interests and through various unrelated abuses occurring within the bureaucratic system concentrated more on capitalistic instead of humanitarian concerns became a victim of the Oregon assisted suicide law. This special needs woman is an example of the abuses of power based on financial balance sheets. Sad instances such as this could become more commonplace if legalized assisted suicide became widespread. Insurance companies already wield too much power and should not influence health care decisions. Legalized assisted suicide would only enhance their power over life and death. Another possible scenario involving legalized suicide is patients who are informed that they have only a limited time to live and choose to not suffer and not have their family suffer through their remaining days. Ending their life sooner rather than later becomes a viable option. This choice would deprive their family of cherished time and ends any possibility of remission of the disease or recovery. Additionally, might the doctor have made an error in their diagnosis? If the patient died prior to their natural end this question would always be on the minds of the family members left behind. The previously discussed case of the paralyzed man reported by O’Brien shows how even when the doctors diagnosis is correct, the patient was informed he would remain paralyzed for life and could only realistically expect to live 30 years following the accident, that did not prevent him from living a happy, productive and fulfilling life for at least 31 of years as of the date of the writing (2005). Countering Pro Several studies have shown and common sense dictates that undermanned medical care institutions provide a lessened degree of care. Patients who are recovering from a curable illness could best benefit from quality care yet their health care is compromised because staff hours are spent caring for patients who are suffering a slow, excruciating and humiliating death. “The time of health care professionals, of which there is a perpetual shortage, especially nurses, could be used in a more productive manner such as on patients who are not certain to die.” (Messerli, 2007). It’s a burden on the health care system, the recovering patient, dying patient and their family which must pay high hospital costs to only watch their loved ones suffering. Elderly, terminally ill patients do not wish their life’s final days to cause the financial ruin of their kids, the people whose best interest have long been a top priority. Assisted suicide also allows for the harvesting of bodily organs such as kidneys, hearts and livers for transplant into otherwise healthy patients who have the potential to live many healthy, quality years. Overall health care costs would be reduced because patients with zero chance of living no longer exhaust the already scarce resources which translate to reduced insurance rates. “Health care costs have skyrocketed over the past decade and as the ‘baby boom generation’ ages, this problem will increase exponentially which does not benefit anyone.”(Messerli, 2007). Strongest Argument: Unbearable Pain The debate regarding legal assisted suicide involves impassioned, persuasive arguments on either side of the subject. The proponents of legal assisted suicides central argument concerns human suffering. Many illnesses such as cancer cause the most vulnerable among us to experience a lingering and agonizing death. Witnessing a loved one while they slowly perish as a disease eats away their organs is very difficult for family members. This sad circumstance becomes even worse when the patient continues to suffer even after pain killings drugs are administered. It’s unbearable to witness and much worse to endure. This physically and emotionally torturous circumstance occurs in every hospital, every day of every year yet serves no purpose. For any compassionate person, it is inconceivable that anyone be allowed, for instance, a kindly grandmother who has dedicated her entire adult life to caring for her family, to spend the final months of their life suffering continuous pain, vomiting, coughing and convulsing, etc. The psychological anguish for both patient and their family is unimaginably horrifying as well. Patients afflicted with Alzheimer’s disease may not experience physical pain but undergo a different kind of pain and typically for a extensive period of time. “Alzheimer’s is a degenerative disease causing the patient to ramble incoherently and lose their memory.” (Messerli, 2007). People are remembered in this state by their friends and family members instead of who they were while leading active, vibrant and meaningful lives. Conclusion The assisted suicide debate highlights the importance society places on individual autonomy. This culture should question whether or not people who are suffering from tremendous pain and have a degenerative or incurable disease such as AIDS, Alzheimer’s, cancer and multiple sclerosis have the right to make decisions regarding their own body such as when to die. An unfortunate reality is most Americans die a “bad death.” Most U.S. citizens (49 percent) believe assisted suicide to be not only compassionate but ethically acceptable and 44 percent say it’s morally wrong according to a Gallup Poll conducted in 2007 (“Public Divided”, 2007). Laws crafted in Oregon and European demonstrates that reasonable laws can be crafted that prevents abuses of the system yet protects the value of life. When animals are suffering and dying society agrees that the ‘humane thing’ be done by helping it to die. Humans should be treated humanely. Works Cited Dangelantonio, Anthony J. “Physician-Assisted Suicide: The Legal and Practical Contours” University of New Hampshire Law School January 25, 2008 Web. November 3, 2011 < http://law.unh.edu/risk/vol4/winter/dangel.htm> Dyer, Dale E. :Assisted Suicide.” University of Arizona College of Nursing Branch October 28, 2008. Web. November 3, 2011 “End of Life Care: An Ethical Overview” Center for Bioethics University of Minnesota 2005. Web. November 3, 2011 Messerli, Joe. “Should an incurably-ill patient be able to commit physician-assisted suicide?” Balanced Politics. March 4, 2007 Web. November 3, 2011 O’Brien, Lauren. “Opposing Legalization of the Right to Die.” Emmitsburg Area Historical Society. 2005. Web. November 3, 2011 Olson, Kay. “Euthanasia in Oregon.” The Gimp Parade. March 18, 2007. Web. November 3, 2011 “Public Divided Over Moral Acceptability of Doctor-Assisted Suicide” May 31, 2007 Web. November 3, 2011 Singer, Peter. “Voluntary Euthanasia: A Utilitarian Perspective” University of Notre Dame 2003. Web. November 3, 2011 < http://www.nd.edu/~bthames/docs/phil101/readings/Singer%20-%20Voluntary%20Euthanasia.pdf> “Suffer the little children” The Economist November 9, 2006. Web. November 3, 2011 < http://www.economist.com/node/8150080> Read More