Should Physician-Assisted Suicide Be Legal - Research Paper Example

Should physician-assisted suicide be legal? The word, “Euthanasia”, has its origin in Greek, which symbolizes pleasant death. It signifies termination of an individual’s life to end their sustained suffering till date or the extreme pain that the person might encounter at the time of natural death. The word itself draws immense attention and heartfelt responses from everyone. To the person who acknowledges and supports the cause, it is an act reflecting sympathy, compassion, and kindheartedness towards the victim. Yet, for those who oppose the cause, it is an act of murder and a serious crime. Many people who have sustained enormous pain or are down with a dreaded disease where death cannot be escaped, take the decision to terminate their own lives in order to circumvent further suffering and loss of dignity. This argument and counter argument about the legalization of the phenomenon of Euthanasia makes it an essential topic of debate. The role of medical science plays a vital role in the context of legalizing Euthanasia. In the real world, the occurrence and the circumstances of the execution of Euthanasia cannot be judged by the legal status of Euthanasia. The execution of Euthanasia is practiced secretly as in most places the practice is either illegal or forbidden by the society itself. The fact is undeniable that Euthanasia is practiced in all corners of this globe regardless of whether the judicial system or some group supports or opposes it (Cavan and Dolan, 2000, pp.8-10). Considering the above scenario, legalizing Euthanasia is important to pave a peaceful ending (with strict adherence to the victim’s will) to the life of a person suffering from terminal illness in order to free him from the anguishes of his pain. Significant number of arguments has been raised in the favor of legalizing euthanasia. The liberty and autonomy over an individual’s body are in themselves sufficient justification for active voluntary euthanasia, since no significant harm is caused to others. The principal of beneficence emphasizes sympathetic relief of suffering as a responsibility to take into consideration. There are cases where hastening deaths is the fastest and efficient way to ease such an agony. Finally, “death with dignity” in a chosen manner, surrounded with loved one is an attractive idea, providing terminally ill patients a comforting sense of control over their fate. Not surprisingly, a significant part of public and medical opinions favors the liberalization of euthanasia laws. Priority should be given to the patient itself, rather than the myths of the society. For the terminally ill patients, euthanasia will not just bring a relief to the suffering; it will also minimize cost and stress for both the patient’s loved ones and the health care system. The formerly independent patient now wholly relying on care giver support, would be actually aware of the burden this condition places on the others, and would realize that an ultimate hopeless fight for life is a strain on everyone’s resources. Physician assisted euthanasia is in practice since the 1960’s (Sommerville, 2001, p.145). Considering an example, Karen Ann Quinlan collapsed on the 15th of April, 1975. She was a mere twenty one year old girl. Within hours of collapse, she entered a coma from which she possibly never had a way back. Karen Ann Quinlan’s parents, sincere Roman Catholics, were aware of the fact that their beloved daughter was against the practice of being kept alive by extraordinary means. After a year, as she lay in a "persistent vegetative state," the judicial system finally allowed her medical treatment to be brought to a permanent halt; but artificial means of feeding was sustained. She was maintained in this dismal state until June, 1985, when she ultimately succumbed to her fate and died of chronic pneumonia. Karen’s issue spurred letters of sympathy and ignited the "right to die" movement. How many patients like Karen need to die a degrading and disgraceful death before the society learns to realize their pain and show them a much deserved humanity? (Docker, 2000) . By the theory of utilitarianism, each individual’s case is treated on its own merit, with different assessment of pain and pleasure outcomes determining what should be done. An utilitarian would support voluntarily active euthanasia if this result in less pain than passive euthanasia, which tends to extend the last days and hours of suffering. Even if the patient is pain free, the anxious wait of the relatives, the cost of extra drugs, medicines, nursing time, and the fact that a hospital bed can be used for some other needy patient who might be curable, should all be taken into consideration while calculating the necessity of implementing active euthanasia in a case. In non-voluntary cases the patient’s wishes cannot be taken into account in the decision-making, unless they made a living will; so the joint decisions of the closest relative and the doctor concerned are taken into account (Stewart, 2009, p. 86). There are debates and opinions against euthanasia on moral or ethical grounds. Euthanasia symbolizes the fact that death would be beneficial to the patient, characteristically due to the fact that the patient is undergoing intense pain from a terminal incurable illness or if the patient’s situation is considered to be an “indignity”. Without this precise condition there would not be considerable difference between euthanasia and cold blooded murder for undisclosed motives. The criminal law in the USA and the UK acknowledges active intentional killing by the doctors to be the same as active intentional killing by a common individual, that is, murder. There is a common debate over the necessary condition to perform or take decisions regarding euthanasia. To understand the situation better, one can take into consideration the case of Tony Bland. Tony Bland was the victim of the 1989, Hillsborough football stadium disaster in Sheffield, in which almost 100 spectators were stamped to death. Tony was also caught in the rush. Although he somehow managed to survive, he was in a state of unconsciousness, and never possibly recovered from that state. After spending days at hospital, he was eventually diagnosed of being in a “persistent vegetative state”. The common agreement among the medical experts, who examined him, was that Tony would never pave his way out of the state of unconsciousness. Contrary to a few newspapers, he was neither dead nor dying; the component of the brain essential for basic body function such as breathing was working naturally, without any mode of assistance. He also digested the food normally. However as he was incapable of feeding himself, he was fed through a tube via his nose to his stomach. His excretory function was carried on by a catheter and enemas. Infections were treated via the means of antibiotics. Tony’s parents and doctor wished to stop the tube feeding and antibiotics. The court termed this as unlawful and was against such a proceeding. The official solicitor, argued for the fact that prohibition of Tony’s food intake would be comparable to murder or even manslaughter. The doctor would be deliberately terminating life just like severing the air pipe of a deep sea diver. Euthanasia in this case was not permitted as the patient’s breathing, digestion, and other significant life functions were functioning normally (Keown, 2002, pp 10-13) Human life is such a highly valued good that allowing people to commit suicide or assisting them in committing suicide, for whatever reasons, compromises the value of life and is therefore considered as immoral. Throughout the history, human life has been considered by all societies as the highest valued good. In the account of rights, the right to life is regarded as the more superior rights to other rights such as right to freedom, the right to own property, the right to vote, and the right to security (Morris, 2007, p. 176). Kant in his theory of Deontology argued that people committing suicide destroy their rationality considering just pain. So, suicide and pleading for euthanasia is disrespectful for our own rationality. But this specifically do not apply to cases in which the reason for someone’s request for euthanasia is due to the fact that they are on the verge of losing their rational faculties (as in advanced Alzheimer’s disease) or cases in which someone does not possess any rational faculties since the time of birth (where children are born without a complete brain). Although deontologists do not place their argument to the fact that one should always respect the choice of an individual in such cases, but the idea is that at times it is morally right to avert them from doing what they want (Lacewing, n.d.). Euthanasia amidst all arguments deserves the right to legalization due to the fact that inspite of all the moral and social hindrances, the utmost preference should be given to the patient concerned. It is the patient who deserves a chance of relief from all the pain, have a peaceful ending to his miseries. Societal concerns in this matter should be secondary. It should be also taken into account that with the expenditure of resources invested in treating the patient when there are no chances of recovery and death is the only probable and painful outcome, the option of euthanasia should not be discarded altogether. This is not only for the purpose of relieving the patient from the coming pain in his last moments, but also for the fact that the resources, revenue, time, and spatial availability could be utilized for another patient for whose chances of survival are more prominent. References Cavan, S, Dolan, S (2000). Euthanasia: the debate over the right to die, New York: The Rosen Publishing Group, inc. Docker, C. (2000), Cases in History, Retrieved on 7th march, 2012 from: http://www.euthanasia.cc/cases.html Lacewing, Michael, Euthanasia, retrieved on March 9, 2012 from: http://cw.routledge.com/textbooks/philosophy/downloads/a2/unit3/moral-philosophy/Euthanasia.pdf Keown, J. (2002). Euthanasia, Ethics, and Public Policy: An Argument Against Legalisation, United Kingdom: The Press Syndicate Of The University Of Cambridge. Morris, F.J. (2007). Medicine, Health Care, & Ethics: Catholic Voices, United States of America: The Catholic University of America Press. Stewart, N. (2009). ETHICS: An introduction to modern philosophy, United Kingdom: Polity Press. Sommerville, A.M. (2001). Death talk: the case against euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide, Canada: McGill-Queen’s University Press. Read More