Physician-Assisted Suicide - Research Paper Example

? Physician Assisted Suicide Mercy killing euthanasia or physician assisted suicide is one of the controversial s in the present world. Some people believe that a person in hope condition can decide whether to continue his life in pathetic conditions or not. On the other hand, many others believe that human do not possess authority on his life. Critics of mercy killing believe that life is the most precious thing in this world and it is the contribution of God. They also believe that only the God has the right to make changes upon his creations and any activity performed against the will of God is unethical. Euthanasia is classified into two types; active euthanasia and passive euthanasia. This paper compares active and passive euthanasia and analyzes the arguments in favor and against performing physician assisted suicide. Physician Assisted Suicide In the United States, physician-assisted suicide is legal only in Oregon. The Oregon Death With Dignity Act was passed in November 1994 by a margin of 51% to 49%. After multiple legal proceedings prevented its enactment, the Act became law on October 27, 1997. In November 1997, 60% of voters voted against Measure 25, which would have repealed the Act. The Death With Dignity Act legalizes physician-assisted suicide but prohibits euthanasia (Facts and Statistics on Euthanasia, 2010) Physician assisted suicide (PAS) and euthanasia are slightly different even though the purpose of both remains the same. PAS is a kid of suicide performed with the help of a physician as the name suggests whereas euthanasia is the intentional ending of life of a person by the physician. Euthanasia or PAS are normally performed when a patient happens to be in a no hope condition and suffers severe pain and agony. Proponents of PAS believe that there is no point in sustaining the life of a patient in pathetic condition, if the hope for survival is zero. They argue that ultimately the patient is the one who suffers a lot as a result of the sustainment of his life in critical conditions. Others can argue for the sustainment of his life citing ethical or moral reasons; however such people do not realize the extent of agony and pain suffered by the patient. Morality and ethics are gradually diminishing from the current world because of people’s changing life styles, life philosophies and attitudes towards life. Earlier people like to live in larger families whereas current generation likes to live in nuclear families. In other words, earlier, helping or assisting old people or patients during the end of their life periods, was considered as a duty and responsibility. At present people do not believe in such things. Everybody wants to safeguard their interests at present and they do not bother much about the necessities of older generation or patients who are fighting for their lives. Current generation is more selfish and they give priority to their personal wellbeing and do not bother much about the interests of others. Under such circumstances, old people or patients in no hope conditions would like to terminate their lives and PAS is an option available in front of them. On the other hand, religions or critics argue against PAS citing moral reasons. For them, human do not possess the right to terminate his life under any circumstances because of the immense value of human life. They also argue that God has certain plan on each person’s life which is difficult to realize with human abilities. Religions argue that the life in this world is only a temporary assignment and a permanent life is waiting for each human after his death. The life after death is associated with the merits and demerits of the activities in present life. In short, there are different views about the topic physician assisted suicide. Before analyzing the above issue in detail, it is better to identify different types of euthanasia prevailing in the present society. Wrong evaluation or assessment about the conditions of a patient may sometimes motivate others in performing euthanasia. Legalization of euthanasia may motivate such people further. Even for simple diseases, people may perform euthanasia if it is legalized. In other words the chances of misuse are associated with the legalization of euthanasia. Active and Passive Euthanasia Active euthanasia entails the use of lethal substances or forces to kill a person such as with lethal injection given to a person with terminal cancer who is in terrible agony. Passive euthanasia entails withholding of medical treatment for continuance of life, such as withholding of antibiotics where without giving it a patient is likely to die, or removing the heart lung machine, from a patient in coma (Active euthanasia vs passive euthanasia, 2011) As the name indicates, in active euthanasia, lethal substances are used to kill a person whereas in passive euthanasia, instead of using any substance to kill the patient, medical assistance or treatment would be stopped in order to allow the patient to die naturally. In both the cases, the purpose remains the same; to kill or assist the patient in committing suicide. Another classification of euthanasia is usually done with respect to the consent of the patient. When euthanasia is performed after taking the consent of the patient, it can be termed as voluntary euthanasia whereas euthanasia performed without taking the consent of the patient often labeled as non-voluntary euthanasia. In any case, two questions seem to be relevant; can medical profession assist people in terminating their miserable lives? Can a patient or his relatives take decision about ending the life of the patient? Medical ethics reminds doctors that the primary duty of the doctor is to assist the patients in saving their lives rather than destroying it. Rachels (1975) has pointed out that “The intentional termination of the life of one human being by another -mercy killing - is contrary to that for which the medical profession stands and is contrary to the policy of the American Medical Association” (Rachels, 1975). Critics or mercy killing argue that even after millions of years after the evolution of human in this world, still we are searching for the secrets behind life before birth and life after death. It is easy to destroy a life; but it is difficult to create a life. In other words, it is impossible for medical science to create an artificial form of life in the laboratory. Under such circumstances, it is illogical or unethical to destroy a life. At the same time the primary duty of medical profession is to help the patients as much as possible in reducing their discomfort using all the available means or treatment options. In other words, helping a patient to terminate his life will be helpful for him to relive pain and agony, if he is no hope conditions. Philippe Naughton (2006) has mentioned that “by legalizing the medically assisted termination of life, we would jeopardize the security of the vulnerable by radically changing the relationship between patient and physician (Naughton, 2006). The doctor-patient relationship is believed to be a sacred one which builds on the trust; a patient keeps on a doctor. Traditionally, medical profession is believed for saving the life rather than destroying it. If doctors also started to kill patients under certain circumstances, the divinity of the doctor-patient relationship will be in jeopardy. The second question about euthanasia is about the authority or right of the patient or his relatives in giving consent for performing PAS. The question of who has the authority of human life is relevant here. The concept of God and the teachings of religions are relevant here. It is fact that religious teachings are based on beliefs rather than facts. At the same time, science has no answer at all about the future of a person after his death. Science does believe that a soul or mind is present in every human body. In fact soul is the driving force or energy of human body. It is impossible for human body to function without a soul or energy. Some philosophers or scientists argue that both soul and body are independent entities whereas some others are of the view that both are related to each other and neither of it does not possess the ability to survive independently. In any case, if soul is an energy form, it is impossible to destroy it according to the energy conservation theorem in Physics. Energy conservation theorem states that, energy can neither be created, nor be destroyed, but can be transformed from one form to another. If that is true, soul may survive even after the death of human body. Under such circumstances it is necessary to find out what is happening to soul after death. Science keeps silence over the above issue whereas religions explain it in terms of the concept of God. The analysis of active and passive euthanasia is even more interesting or confusing! The distinction between active and passive euthanasia is thought to be crucial for medical ethics. The idea is that it is permissible, at least in some cases, to withhold treatment and allow a patient to die, but it is never permissible to take any direct action designed to kill the patient. This doctrine seems to be accepted by most doctors, and it is endorsed in a statement adopted by the House of Delegates of the American Medical Association on December 4, 1973. Active euthanasia is in many cases more humane than passive euthanasia. The conventional doctrine leads to decisions concerning life and death on irrelevant grounds. The doctrine rests on a distinction between killing and letting die that itself has no moral importance (Rachels, 1975) The question of which is good; active or passive euthanasia seems to be ridiculous. Denial of treatment is one way or other similar to the killing of a person. In other words, both active and passive euthanasia seems to be same. Once the doctor, patient and the relatives of patients agreed upon performing euthanasia, it is better to use active euthanasia rather than allowing the patient to die without any dignity or integrity. “The Oregon Death with Dignity Act does not permit euthanasia, in which a physician or other person directly administers a medication to a patient in order to end his or her life”(MedicineNet, 2010). Even though, Oregon is the only state in America which allows PAS, euthanasia is illegal even in Oregon. In other words even in Oregon State recognizes that the sole authority of one’s life is the person himself and nobody else can claim the authority over another person’s life. “In "passive euthanasia" the doctors are not actively killing anyone, they are simply not saving him. While we would usually applaud someone who saves another person's life, we do not normally condemn someone for failing to do so” (Types of Euthanasia, 2001). Some people argue that passive euthanasia is better than active euthanasia since passive euthanasia relieve the doctor from the direct responsibility of killing another person. At the same time, critics of passive euthanasia point out that the silence of doctor or the inactiveness of the doctor while the patient struggles for his life is a crime. In their opinion, it is the duty of the doctor to take necessary actions to help the patient to get rid of his pain. In other words critics of passive euthanasia believe that the doctor should perform active euthanasia if the situation demands it, instead of remain passive while the patient struggles for survival. Conclusions After analyzing the merits and demerits of physician assisted suicide, it is difficult to make a conclusion. The haunting question; from where we come and where we go after death, may remain unresolved forever in all probabilities. The arguments in favor and against PAS are significant ones and it is difficult to support or oppose PAS. Believers always like to terminate their life naturally because of their concerns about life after whereas atheists may like to terminate their life if they happen to be in no hope condition. Even though, critics oppose PAS on moral grounds, in my opinion, it is better to allow people to perform PAS irrespective of beliefs rather than leaving them in miserable conditions. The controversies surrounding PAS may remain in the lime light till medical science succeeds in unveiling the mysteries surrounding life after death. References 1. Active euthanasia vs passive euthanasia. (2011). Retrieved from http://ibnlive.in.com/news/active-euthanasia-vs-passive-euthanasia/145218-3.html 2. Facts and Statistics on Euthanasia, (2010). Retrieved from http://www.religionfacts.com/euthanasia/stats.htm 3. MedicineNet. (2010). Definition of Physician-assisted suicide. Retrieved from http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=32841 4. Rachels J. (1975). Active and passive euthanasia The New England Journal Of Medicine, Vol. 292, January 9, 1975, pp. 78-80. 5. Types of Euthanasia (2001). Retrieved from http://www.pregnantpause.org/euth/types.htm Read More