Physician-Assisted Suicide Should Be Legal - Essay Example

Physician-Assisted Suicide Should Be Legal Persons who are against the idea of assisted suicide argue that if the procedure were legal it create a ‘slippery slope’ for ever-increasing occurrences of coerced suicide, the dying person’s family members pressuring them to hasten their death for financial reasons. Moreover, they contend, legalizing assisted suicide would lessen the urgency to invent new types of drugs and develop procedures designed to prolong life. Doctors who are opposed point to the Hippocratic Oath which forbids them from participating in the procedure. Persons who are for the legalization of assisted suicide believes personal autonomy, individual freedoms, which are expected during life should not abruptly and unnecessarily stop near the end of life. Another perspective is that since everyone agrees that terminally sick or severely injured animals are allowed a humane way to die peacefully. This rationale should be applied to humans too. A person’s sovereignty, their power to make decisions regarding their personal well-being, is stripped away by forbidding them the right to end their own life on their own terms. Self-determination, a right deemed indispensable during a person’s life, abruptly ends at the end of life, just at the time people needs it more than ever. What may be worse is the added indignation of forcible life-saving measures imposed on a dying person. People are kept technically alive while their bodies and minds are wasting away as their families watch and suffer along with the patient. Assisted suicide should be legal. It should not even be a topic that is debated anymore. American citizens are, according to the Declaration of Independence, “endowed with inalienable rights” but apparently the right to die with dignity is excluded somehow. The U.S. Constitution does not prohibit assisted suicide. It’s illegal mainly due to religious zealots who raise objections for ideological reasons. They think the practice is society “playing God” with end of life situations. However, they have no problem with society “playing God” by using extraordinary high-tech procedures to extend peoples life. Assisted suicide is also known by the term “mercy killing.” It is defined as a form of Euthanasia which means “good death.” All of these terms describe a circumstance when a terminally ill patient is administered a lethal dose of medicine or is allowed to die without anyone else actively involved in the process such as not resuscitating the patient or the patient being removed from a life support system. A doctors’ involvement could be to use intravenous means to administer the lethal dose. The terminally ill patient then activates a switch, lever, etc. which dispenses the drug or the doctor could administer the drug(s) themselves. (Kure, 2011). Physicians, lawyers and philosophers have argued the idea of assisted suicide since the beginnings of civilization but the general public discussion pertaining to legalization is but a few decades old. The questions regarding assisted suicide have moved beyond the realm of who is allowed to speak for the unconscious patient and into that of the rights of the patient. According to common law found in the majority of, if not all, legal jurisdictions, incurably ill persons who exhibit mental competency are able to request that life-savings methods be withheld even when this choice will certainly result in their death. This right found in common law is based on the importance society places on self-determination. All agree that people should to be protected from unwanted, offensive and non-consensual touching by anyone else. These local common laws have their foundations in the U.S. Constitution at both the federal and state level. On the federal level personal rights stem from liberty provision within the Due Process Clause located in the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution. At the state level, New Hampshire’s state Constitution, as an example, individual rights are located in part One, articles Two and Three. These articles have been broadly understood as guaranteeing that “individuals have a constitutional right of 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” that can be limited “only when a compelling state interest is involved.” (Stamatakis, 2007). During the 1970’s it became legal across the country to make “living wills” which allows a person to reject “heroic” life saving techniques if they have become incapable of communicating and can only survive by artificial means. In more common terms, a living will gives the patient’s next of kin the right have the doctor “pull the plug.” Of course, legal safeguards are in place to assure the patient’s demise is indeed eminent. Though the concept is widely accepted, unfortunately, a living will does not eliminate the prospect of terminally ill patients being artificially kept alive for very long periods of time in a permanent vegetative, comatose state because there were typically no legal stipulations for withholding nutrition or medication. This exclusion has been effectively remedied by using power of attorney. Still, this also has its drawbacks because there is typically no way to enforce the individual’s final wishes. Oregon is the lone state that assisted suicide is legal. It’s also legal in three countries in Europe, Switzerland, Belgium and The Netherlands. In 2006 the Oregon law was challenged by the U.S. Supreme Court which a voted six to three to uphold the law. The former President Bush administration attempted to invalidate Oregon’s assisted suicide law in the court of public opinion and therefore pressure the conservative leaning Court by stating the procedure wasn’t a “legitimate medical purpose.” However, the Justices were not convinced by Bush’s argument. (Ertelt, 2004). The Oregon law is patterned after The Netherlands which is intended to guarantee second opinions by licensed, dispassionate doctors have been sought and there is an unquestionable certainty death will take place reasonably soon. Furthermore, the terminally ill patient must make several requests for the assisted suicide procedure over an extended time period and must be willing to administer the drug overdose. Assisted suicide has been legal in The Netherlands for nine years but has been allowed for about 30 years. Switzerland legalized assisted suicide during the 1940’s. The peculiar circumstances in Switzerland dictate that the assisted suicide is allowed as long as the physician does not take part in the procedure. The lethal dose can only be given by the patient themselves. Switzerland, in addition to legalization, has created three institutions to support incurably ill patients. These institutions provide patients with end of life counseling in addition to supplying the drugs necessary for the procedure. However, they do not inject the drugs. In Belgium assisted suicide was legalized in 2002. Each patient must be assessed by two physicians before the process is performed by taking the drugs either orally or intravenously. “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.” (“The Fight,” 2009). Those opposed to the legalization of doctor assisted suicide accurately claim that this procedure would break their Hippocratic Oath. In addition, they insist, it would cause the devaluation of human life. Life is considered more sacred in America than in most other cultures so the choices of others make concerning assisted suicide are immaterial. Most doctors practice medicine ethically but not all. A minority make a side business from giving phony prescriptions to drug addicts. Diet pills, for example, are routinely prescribed to “patients” who are maybe one or two pounds over ideal weight. In these cases the doctor is merely a drug dealer cloaked under a white coat and legitimate looking office facade. Of course only a small percentage of doctors write illicit prescriptions but it does happen and too often all across the nation. It’s easy to forecast that a few doctors will be persuaded by financial incentives to assist in the suicide of those who are undergoing a momentarily unhappy period in their life due to emotional or psychological issues. A doctor giving out bogus prescriptions is scandalous but to profit while assisting in someone’s premature death is worse. Drug addictions can be overcome but suicide is permanent. While a great majority of doctors practice medicine ethically and devote their lives to caring for people, profit is insurance company’s only interest. “Insurance companies have plainly demonstrated their callousness by dropping expensive patients and not covering patients with pre-existing conditions.” (Messerli, 2007). Insurance companies would have great financial incentive to coerce doctors into “pulling the plug” on people who running up a high medical bill due to a prolonged hospital stay if assisted suicide were legal. Some people in the U.S. have voiced their opposition to the assisted suicide law in Oregon. These objections usually concern the relatively few abuses, the isolated cases that occur within the system. In these instances therapy may have been used to avert mistakes. One such situation involves a non-verbal woman. “(She) 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.” (Olson, 2007) Unfortunate examples such as this would occur more often if assisted suicide became legal in all states. Insurance companies have too much power as it is and should not control end of life decisions. Legalizing assisted suicide would give them more power than they already have. Another example used by opponents to legal assisted suicide involves patients who are told they have only a short time to live and decide to both end their own physical suffering and relieve their family’s mental anguish somewhat during the remaining days. Ending their life sooner rather than later becomes a viable option. “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. This choice would deprive their family of cherished time and ends any possibility of remission of the disease or recovery.” (O’Brian, 2005). In addition, doctors have been known to make a wrong diagnosis. If the afflicted person is put to death before the time of their natural demise this and other questions would always haunt the remaining family members. The above paralysis case demonstrates how even though the doctor’s diagnosis was accurate, the patient was told they would be paralyzed for rest of their life and that their natural life would be shortened following the mishap, this did not prevent them from living a very fulfilling, productive, successful and happy life more than 31 of years and counting as of this writing. The depression following the diagnosis eventually faded away. The patient acknowledges they would have strongly considered assisted suicide had it been legal at that time. Understaffed medical institutions offer a lessened quality of care according to much research and common sense. The health care of persons who are recovering from a treatable illness is compromised because too much hospital staff time is spent caring for terminally ill patients who are enduring an excruciatingly slow, 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 liability on the health care system and a horrible burden for all concerned, the dying patient, recuperating patient and their families. Older, incurably ill patients do not want the final days of their lives be financially devastating of their descendents, the very people whose welfare has long been their highest priority. Assisted suicide is beneficial for society as a whole because it allows for bodily organs such as hearts, kidneys and livers to be harvested for transplant into otherwise healthy people who could live many more quality, healthy years. Health care costs across the board would be decreased because patients with no chance of living would no longer use up the already limited resources which means reduced insurance rates for all. “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). The emotional torment for incurably ill patients and their family is unimaginable as well. Patients stricken with Alzheimer’s disease, for example, may not suffer physical pain but experiences a different type of anguish and usually for a long period of time. “Alzheimer’s is a degenerative disease causing the patient to ramble incoherently and lose their memory. People are remembered in this state by their friends and family members instead of who they were while leading active, vibrant and meaningful lives.” (Messerli, 2007). The assisted suicide debate illustrates the significance society puts on individual autonomy. This country should seriously examine whether or not its citizens who have a degenerative or incurable illness and suffering from unbearable mental and/or physical anguish caused by diseases such as cancer, AIDS, multiple sclerosis and Alzheimer’s have the right to decide when to die. A regrettable reality is that most people die a “bad death.” Most Americans (48 percent) consider assisted suicide to be compassionate and ethically acceptable and 45 percent think it is morally unacceptable according to a Gallup Poll conducted in 2011 (“Doctor Assisted”, 2011). Those who want assisted suicide legalized are mainly concerned with human suffering. Many illnesses cause a lingering and agonizing death for those who at their most vulnerable. Watching a loved one as they slowly and painfully die is very difficult for family and friends. It’s agonizing to witness and worse for the patient to endure. This torturous circumstance, both in physical and emotional terms happens every day in every hospital but serves no purpose. It is inconceivable that any human who feels the least bit of empathy would allow, for example, a grandmother who has spent her whole life caring for others to spend the final days of her life suffering in nonstop pain, coughing, convulsing, vomiting, etc. Laws passed in Oregon and Europe shows that practical laws can be made which prevent abuses within the system and maintains the value of life. Society agrees that when animals are suffering and/or dying the “humane thing” is to help it die. Humans ought to be treated humanely. References Ertelt, Steven. (November 9, 2004). “Bush Administration Appeals Decision on Oregon Assisted Suicide Law” Life News.com Accessed November 18, 2011 from < http://www.lifenews.com/2004/11/09/bio-554/> Kure, Josef. “A Philosophical Clarification of the Concept of Euthanasia.” University Centre for Bioethics & Department of Medical Ethics Masaryk University, Brno, Czech Republic September 2, 2011. Accessed November 18, 2011 from < www.intechopen.com/download/pdf/pdfs_id/19609> Messerli, Joe. (March 4, 2007). “Should an incurably-ill patient be able to commit physician-assisted suicide?” Balanced Politics. Accessed November 18, 2011 from O’Brien, Lauren. (2005). “Opposing Legalization of the Right to Die.” Emmitsburg Area Historical Society. Accessed November 18, 2011 from Olson, Kay. (March 18, 2007). “Euthanasia in Oregon.” The Gimp Parade. Accessed November 18, 2011 from “Poll: Doctor-assisted suicide divisive” (May 31, 2011). UPI.com Accessed November 18, 2011 from Stamatakis, Carol. (Winter, 2007). “Personal Autonomy and the Right To Refuse Life-Sustaining Medical Treatment” New Hampshire Bar Association Accessed November 18, 2011 from < http://www.nhbar.org/publications/display-journal-issue.asp?id=349> “The Fight for the Right To Die” (February 9, 2009). CBC News Accessed November 18, 2011 from < http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2009/02/09/f-assisted-suicide.html> Read More