Physician-Assisted Suicide: Compassionate Liberation or Murder - Research Paper Example

? Physician-Assisted Suicide: Compassionate Liberation or Murder? First Educational Physician-Assisted Suicide: Compassionate Liberation or Murder? According to Jane Roh (2006), hot debate is going on in America over the practical, moral, and legal issues surrounding assisted suicide even though the Supreme Court ruled unanimously against the physician-assisted suicide in 1997. She has also pointed out that in 2006 the Supreme Court supported the Oregon's physician-assisted suicide law, which allows terminal patients to seek the services of PAS legally. As the name indicates, Physician-assisted suicide, or mercy killing, is the termination of life with the help of a physician. Physician-Assisted Suicide is a concept, which is gaining popularity in recent times. Many people believe that it is ethical and logical to allow a person to terminate his life if the hope for survival is small. They argue that there is no point in asking a person to continue his life in all sorts of pain and sufferings without any hope. On the other hand, many other people argue that life is so precious, and it is unethical and illogical to take the life of a person even if he or she is seriously ill. Such people’s point of view is that only the creator has the authority to terminate or finish the life which is created by him. Every state in America has got a different law with respect to Physician-Assisted Suicide. In some states it is legal, whereas in other states it is illegal. For example, the Oregon Death with Dignity Act allows a person to terminate his life with the help of a physician (Hendin & Foley, 2008, p.121). Oregon State believes that Physician-Assisted Suicide is a Compassionate Liberation. Robinson (2010) pointed out that “[t]hough not legal in Montana, its Terminally Ill Act frees the physician involved from criminal prosecution since neither malice, nor the desire to inflict harm was at the cause of the assisted suicide” (p.15). On the other hand, the majority of the American states opposes to such laws accusing or labeling Physician-Assisted Suicide as a murder. This paper analyses whether the Physician-Assisted Suicide is a Compassionate Liberation or a Murder. Arguments in favor of PAS “Supporters of legislation legalizing assisted suicide claim that all persons have a moral right to choose freely what they will do with their lives as long as they inflict no harm on others” (Andre & Velasquez, n. d). Even though the secrets behind life are still unknown, one thing is sure: the authority of one’s life lies on the person alone. In other words, the right to terminate or continue one’s life should be given to a person if his or her life continues in no hope condition. It should be noted that nobody could share the pain and sufferings caused by a disease in one’s life. Under such circumstances, it is illogical and unethical to ask him or her to continue the life in pathetic conditions. As assisted suicide may not cause any physical problems to others, it should be allowed at any cost to allow a person to end his or her life in dignity. There are plenty of people who dislike the idea of continuing their life at the mercy of others. A person in no hope condition would definitely require the assistance of relatives and others. These assistants may not show their dislikes in assisting that person, but they may reveal their dislikes in private conversations with others. Under such circumstances, one can say that the patient is continuing his or her life in an undignified manner. Nobody can blame that patient if he or she takes decision to terminate the life. “Another argument in favor of physician-assisted suicide is that the right of a person to avoid pain and suffering that cannot be adequately controlled” (“Suicide and Ethical Aspects Assisted Suicide,” 2010). There are plenty of people who are suffering from cancer and other serious diseases. Physicians usually inject painkillers into the bodies of such patients to relieve pain and agony. The doctors are quiet sure about the fate of such patients. So, they may inject powerful morphine-like drugs into the bodies of such patients to relieve pain. There is no point in relieving the pain temporarily. Such patients should be allowed to take decisions concerning their life. The term “physician aid-in-dying” is used to describe the practice authorized under the Washington and Oregon Death with Dignity Acts and is meant to reflect the requirement that eligible persons must be decisionally competent and have a limited life expectancy of about 6 months or less. In this context, the term is meant to reflect that physicians provide assistance to patients who are otherwise going to die, and who seek help to control the timing and circumstances of their death in the face of end-of-life suffering they deem intolerable. While this term evades the mental health connotations associated with the word suicide, people who object to the use of “physician aid in dying” suggest that it could include other practices that are clearly outside the legal bounds of Oregon’s and Washington’s Death with Dignity Act, e.g. a patient who receives assistance in ingesting the medication, which would constitute euthanasia. (Braddock, 2010) Our society has a strong craving for protecting the life of healthy people. However, the society shows less interest in protecting the life of old or seriously diseased people. The society knows that only healthy people contribute in some ways whereas old or diseased people may become a liability. Today’s culture is such that people often consider the probabilities of profits and losses while taking an action. In other words, people usually interested in doing profitable activities whereas they are less interested in doing unprofitable activities. Commercialization can be seen in every aspect of human life at present. Under such circumstances, it is illogical to think that the society may spend more on the non-productive sectors such as the caring of seriously diseased people. Therefore, nobody can blame such people if they decide to terminate their lives with the help of doctors. Arguments against PAS According to Lachman (2010), “[h]onoring the autonomy of a patient does not require participation in PAS. However, nurses who support PAS speak of the patient's autonomous choice and their choice to assist in ending suffering of terminally ill patients”(p.121). It is illogical and unethical to persuade a patient to terminate his or her life under any circumstances. “Many faith groups within Christian, Muslim, Jewish and other religions believe that God gives life and therefore only God should take it away” (“Info: Ethical aspects of PAS,” n.d.). It should be noted that even after huge developments in science and technology we still do not know the secrets behind life and death. We do not know from where we come to this world and where we go after death. Science does accept the existence of soul, or energy, in the body of a person. In fact, this soul or energy is responsible for driving our body. Science does know that the body will be destroyed after death. On the other hand, science struggles to explain what happens to the soul, or the energy, after death. According to the scientific principles, energy can neither be created not be destroyed. Under such circumstances, science should explain what happens to this energy, which drives the body, after the death of a person. So far, science failed to explain these things. Therefore, it is logical to believe that a superpower, or creator, exists in this world. If that is true, it is unethical to question the intentions of God or creator by terminating the life of its creations. Believers argue that God send us to this world with a mission. Life is the blessing of God according to these people. They argue that God has created human life on earth for certain missions. Disallowing God to complete his missions is unethical according to believers or religions. They argue that the life in this world is temporary and a permanent life is waiting for every one after death. The activities in this life may decide whether a person gets hell or heaven after his death. According to the argument of believers, terminating a life is a sin. Those who terminate their life to escape from the pains of this world may face serious pains in the eternal life after death. Plenty of philosophers like Immanuel Kant, Plato, Aristotle, and John Locke were critics of PAS. Locke argued that life, like liberty, represents an inalienable right, which cannot be taken from, or given away by, an individual. According to Kant, suicide was an action that violates moral responsibility. He argued that the proper end of rational beings requires self-preservation, and that suicide would therefore be inconsistent with the fundamental value of human life. Plato also argued that, in most cases, suicide would represent abandonment of one's duty and would violate divinely mandated. Aristotle believed that suicide was unjust under all circumstances, because it deprived the community of a citizen (The Ethical Debate, 2001, p.81). Human life is the most important thing in this world. All the people in this world may accept this fact. However, people may differ in their opinion of how to spend the life or lead the life. Some people try to enjoy life as much as possible. For them, life happens only once, and it should be utilized as much as possible. A second category of people believes that the purpose of life is something different from enjoyment. In their opinion, life has lot of meanings which are difficult to understand. Another argument cited against PAS is taking of rational decisions with respect to the ability of a person in no hope condition. Drickamer et al. (2004) have pointed out that “at the time when a patient requests physician-assisted suicide, the patient may be experiencing isolation, guilt, or low self-worth as a result of being a burden to others and anger or other emotions may limit the patient's acceptance of alternatives”. In other words, those who seek the help of PAS may do so only because of their problems in rational thinking. It is quite possible that he or she may change decisions again and again. Moreover, there are plenty of cases in which people in no hope conditions return to stable life. Under such circumstances, it is unethical to accept the demands of patients in no hope conditions. Conclusions It is difficult to accept or rule out the arguments of either the supporters or the critics of PAS completely. There are certain serious issues in both the sides of these two arguments. The autonomy of a person has to be respected when it comes to the sustention of life. There is no point in persuading non-believers to extend their life when they are in pathetic conditions. At the same time, it is illogical to persuade believers to commit PAS under any circumstances. It should be noted that life after death is a belief rather than a fact. At the same time, nobody can deny the authenticity of beliefs when science fails to explain certain things. In short, the autonomy and the opinions of the sufferer should be respected when deciding for or against PAS. “If physician-assisted suicide is legalized, physicians will need to gain expertise in understanding patients' motivations for requesting physician-assisted suicide, assessing mental status, diagnosing and treating depression, maximizing palliative interventions, and evaluating the external pressures on the patient” (Drickamer et al., 2004, p.146). The chances of misusing of PAS cannot be ruled out if it is legalized. It is quite possible that the relatives of the patient may persuade the patient to accept PAS. Even patients with chances of survival may opt for PAS when their relatives show less interest in support of their life. Therefore, it is difficult to label PAS either as murder or as compassionate liberation. PAS should be considered as an ethical issue rather than a practical solution to escape from pain and sufferings. References Andre, C., & Velasquez, M. (n. d.). Assisted suicide: a right or a wrong? Markkula Canter of Applied Ethics. Retrieved from http://www.scu.edu/ethics/publications/iie/v1n1/suicide.html Braddock, C.H. (2008). Physician-assisted suicide. Ethics in Medicine. Retrieved from http://depts.washington.edu/bioethx/topics/pad.html Drickamer, M. A. MD, Ganzini, L. MD, & Lee M.A. MD. (2004). Practical issues in physician-assisted suicide. Ann Intern Med, 126 (2), 146-151. Hendin, H. & Foley, K. (2008). Physician-assisted suicide in Oregon: a medical perspective. Issues in Law & Medicine, 24(2). 121-145. Info: Ethical aspects of PAS, (n.d.), Retrieved from http://www.religioustolerance.org/euth7.htm Lachman, V. (2010). Physician-assisted suicide: compassionate liberation or murder? Medsurg Nurs, 19(2). 121-125. Roh, J. (2006, January 17). Supreme court backs Oregon assisted suicide law. Fox News. Retrieved from http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,181881,00.html Robinson, J. (2010). Baxter and the return of physician-assisted suicide. Hastings Center Report, 40(6). 15-17. Suicide and ethical aspects assisted suicide - the public debate over physician-assisted Suicide. (2010), Net Industries. Retrieved from http://medicine.jrank.org/pages/1705/Suicide-Assisted-Suicide-Ethical-Aspects.html The Ethical Debate. (2001). In When death is sought (Chapter 5). Retrieved from http://www.health.state.ny.us/nysdoh/consumer/patient/chap5.html Read More