Legalizing Physician Assisted Suicide - Essay Example

Legalizing Physician-Assisted Suicide For the opponents of PAS there are four reasons for not supporting the legalizationof physician assisted suicide. In line with the religion, they argue that life is precious and belongs to God and only God who have the right to bring it to an end. Medically they have an argument that when a health care personnel, that Is doctor or nurse is under the obligation to carry out PAS, he or she will be in violation of medical ethic (rule) that propel all healthcare workers to have respect on life. By coming up with an different means of treatment, indicates that the doctors in charge of the person concerned are failures and that is why they are choosing the other alternative Physician-assisted suicide should be legalized in order to assist the adults who have terminal illness. This response is sympathetic to patient who is suffering and dying. They deliver themselves when they accept PAS on their own without coercion. When all the systems are in proper working condition, the choice of PAS will come after all other ways of treatment are exhausted and not any one method is able to treat the suffering the patient has. If the patient is in the right mind, he or she is allowed to call for assistance to end their life. This can be interpreted to mean that, a physician is allowed to give medicine prescription that will speed up death. This is only done with the consent of the patient. (1) There are fears that minority and the vulnerable may be forced to sign for the premature death. Safeguards should be put in place to prevent some medical personnel may abuse the legal laws to coerce the handicapped, minority the elderly and all other vulnerable populations sign to their premature deaths being anxious because you know the future carry the pain and death for you can only be put to rest through the PAS . After you die suffering will come to an end and the rising medical bill will be put to a halt. Individual should be allowed to make this decision without being forced by anyone be it the government, religion, or relatives. Out of what they are going through, they will decide on their own. Ethical, any person with terminal illness should be given the right to end his or her life. They should be able to do that with dignity. Quality of life is an important factor to consider in this argument. The religious supporters put forward this argument that life is sacred and belongs to God and it is always better to live than being dead. On the other hand the ethical argument says that life should continue only if the person feels that it is better to live For instance the pro PAS or those who support euthanasia may advance ethical argument that that if a person is living in an unbearable pain and their quality of life is badly affected; they should decide to end life. Form suffering, it is not humane to continue pressing a person to go on with medication and yet his or her pain cannot be put to an end using medicine. Many people who have illness that do not respond to medicine die in great pain. A trustworthy study suggests that patient who died in hospital due terminal illness they were in great pain for the last few days of their life. A person should not be allowed to live in pain. We try our best to relive our animals of pain; we hurriedly find the ways to put the pain away from them. Human beings are superior to animals and they should not suffer pain. In Oregon, only the competent individuals who request PAS are allowed to practice it. If PAS is justified with suffering, then there should not be any restriction to certain individual, because pain and suffering are not limited to some individuals. Generally it is cruel to allow a person to suffer along period of time. Other patients who suffer terminal illness like cancer, HIV and AIDs and many others may be living in life of suffering and sometimes they decide to reject medication to force their way to death. It is not good to force patients with such suffering to take medication that do not function. This increases pain to patients and to those who are looking after them. Patients suffering should have the right to PAS whenever they want. This will be less costly and reduce suffering to the patient. Patient has a right to refuse medical treatment. Every day patients are under pressure to make tough decisions whether to take or reject medical treatment. Some of the treatments could be frightening and even risky. In such conditions patient may decide to reject treatment and cause more harm than if they are allowed to undergo PAS. Nancy Cruzan got involved in a car accident. She was critically injured and left in a half conscious state. She was unable feed on her own. Therefore, the health workers implanted gastronomy to feed her and a hydration tube. After sometime the guardians realized that Cruzan had no chances to recover. A petitioner and the parents to Cruzan went to hospital and requested the hospital employees to remove the pipes that support life. The employees of the hospital did accept the request until they were served with the court order. They went to Missouri Supreme Court. During the appeal, there was no enough and convincing evidence that that would have shown the court that Cruzan would not accept. However, after several court trials they won the case and the gastronomy and the other feeding mechanism, and she died after two weeks (2) The moral principles supporting the passage of the laws supporting PAS are; we should respect the autonomy in the life of men. Any person with proper medical grounds should be allowed to end life on their own will. We should feel for the suffering person. She was in great pain and any medical health care did not treat her. It could be cruel to see her continue suffering. By removing the life mechanisms from her, the pain was over. Only the doctors could do this because they were the most credible to give this kind of assistance. They have the knowledge on the right dosage to administer. Supporting PAS, is giving the suffering patient to get this kind of services from the physicians. (2) The Death with Dignity Act gives the right to PAS to all the patients who are terminally and meet the following conditions. The patient must be adults. That is be of 18 years of age or older. The patient must be a resident of the state allowing PAS. The patient must be diagnosed by the psychiatrists to be of sound mind to be able to make sound decisions on health care. The patient must be having a terminal disease that will cause death within the six months of sickness. (1) These laws will help to curb the dangers rogue doctors can infiltrate into to the laws. The courts should therefore rule in favor of a patient’s right to end his or her life. But the study needs to be conducted to make PAS safe and not to be imposed to the most vulnerable in the society. Works Cited Battin, M P, Rosamond Rhodes, and Anita Silvers. Physician Assisted Suicide: Expanding the Debate. New York: Routledge, 2010. Print. Dworkin, Gerald, R G. Frey, and Sissela Bok. Euthanasia and Physician-Assisted Suicide. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011. Print. Read More