Physician-Assisted Suicide - Essay Example

"Physician-Assisted Suicide" is a perfect example of a paper on medical ethics.
Vermont, Oregon, Montana, among other states, have all passed laws authorizing physician-assisted suicide. In essence, physician-assisted suicide (PAS) involves a physician assisting the patient to die by providing them with prescriptions or injections that are lethal. However, instead of the physician administering the lethal prescription, the patient or family administers the lethal medication or dose. In this sense, physician-assisted suicide differs from euthanasia because the latter involves the doctor or physician actively taking the life of the patient by administering medication or lethal injection. For terminally ill persons with a poor prognosis of their condition, the right to die as physician-assisted suicide has been labeled can look desirable. For instance, instead of treating a terminally ill person, letting them die can help save family finances from treating a condition which the patient will never recover; moreover, even nature does not favor the weak. However, opponents of physician-assisted suicide see it as a continuation of the culture of death, including the legalization of abortion, setting on a slippery slope and likely to violate physicians' ethical values. This essay will argue that physician-assisted suicide should be legalized.

Chantel (88) found that in California, where the proposal for physician-assisted suicide was presented, 68% of the respondents in the survey were in support of physician-assisted suicide. In particular, Chantel found that where respondents were presented with a vignette of a patient who was terminally ill and with little chance of recovering from the disease, giving them a chance to choose their death was reasonable. However, opponents would point to the situations where the patient's prognosis was given as dismal by the doctors but the patient survived and lived longer than the doctors had imagined. But this argument fails to appreciate the idea that death is not given as finality but as among the options that the patient may consider. In other words, if the doctor gives a prognosis that the patient would not survive beyond six months, the patient can decide to die earlier or wait and see whether they will survive past six months. The power to die thus rests in the hands of the patient rather than a physician. The physician plays the part of providing information to the patient or family and proposing options, ultimately the decision to die or not will have to be taken by the patient or their families.

The slippery slope is a major concern when it comes to physician-assisted suicide. There is a real fear that vulnerable populations such as the disabled could be at increased risk of suffering physician-assisted suicide. However, Wire Feeds Atlanta (7) investigating physician-assisted suicide found that concerns about persons with mental illnesses requesting physician-assisted suicide were higher than fear of PAS being practiced on a vulnerable population. In this sense, the concern should be on ensuring that people requesting PAS are not victims of emotional pain. People with emotional pain are typically at higher risks of committing suicide (Groholt and Øivind 8). However, these persons can be helped to overcome their emotional distress rather than helping them to die.

The Hippocratic oath requires that physicians act in ways that are not harmful to the interests of the patient and do not cause pain. In this sense, a patient in extreme pain cannot be asked to take the option of dying. Instead, the physician should act to control and manage the pain. Once the pain is under control and the physician gives a prognosis of the patient not surviving for long, then providing death as an option is not a violation of the physician's Hippocratic values. Notably, the physician has a duty to provide the patient or their families with all information regarding their health and disease progression. Moreover, since the physician is not directly participating in causing the death of the patient, it cannot be true that they have abrogated their Hippocratic oath. The patient is given the freedom to die just the same way they have a right to seek medical attention. As long as the physician provides a correct diagnosis of the patient and prognosis, then the decision to die by the patient should not be a violation of the Hippocratic oath.

In summary, PAS should be legal if the diagnosis and prognosis are correct. In other words, if the information about the condition of the patient is accurate. In addition, PAS gives the patient the right to die, which should not be taken away from a patient who is in pain which has exceeded control by all available medication and techniques. Moreover, PAS does not violate the Hippocratic oath of the physician because in giving death as an option, the physician is helping in ending the pain of the patient rather than prolong it. Moreover, PAS expands the liberties of individuals including the right to die.