Physician Assisted Suicide - Essay Example

 Physician Assisted Suicide “Where’s Daddy’s gun?” This is the starting point from which the film “’Night Mother” examines the motivation of the protagonist Jessie, who finds the gun with her mother’s help and quietly announces that she is going to kill herself.(www.storyispromise.com). It is a complex examination into the psyche of Jessie, who is suffering from seizures which are under control due to medication and appears ordinary and normal otherwise. The question answers the interesting premise as to why a person who has not been pushed to a crisis situation would still want to kill herself with such a strong willed determination that none of her mother’s persuasive arguments serve to sway her from the staunch belief that her life is not worth living. In the film, Jessie states: “And I can’t do anything either, about my life…..like it better, make it work. But I can stop it. Shut it down, turn it off like the radio when there’s nothing on I want to listen to.” (www.storyispromise.com). This profound statement implies that the control over a person’s life is in their own hands, however does this also imply that a person can choose to end his or her life simply out of a desire to stop living? Jessie’s life is more or less normal; therefore her desire to end her life seems inexplicable, because it is motivated purely out of the desire to put an end to a life without purpose or meaning. It may be argued that there needs to be a more substantial reason for a person to seek death, yet the single minded determination of the character to terminate a life not worth living is one that raises the issue of patient choice where suicide is concerned; should physicians always respect the autonomy of the patient that seeks to die through physician assisted suicide and help them achieve their ends?. Terminally ill patients most often seek the release of death because their lives are too painful or unbearable and request their physicians to assist them in achieving their death. Surveys have been conducted in order to ascertain the thoughts of physicians in the matter of physician assisted suicide. These surveys have found that physicians are of the opinion that the high levels of physical and mental suffering that some patients go through are most often the reason why they seek to die, while others seek to die in a dignified manner and are tired of life, or do not wish to be dependent upon others (Van Der Maas et al 39-49; Back et al, 919-25). Recent studies have shown that many patients express a wish to die when they are suffering from depression or pain and experience poor levels of social support (Chochinov 1185-91). In other cases, physicians have expressed the view that financial pressures on the patient appeared to be a significant factor in the desire for death, because he or she fears becoming a burden on others. There has been an increasing amount of support accorded to the notion of physician assisted suicide, especially in the case of terminally ill patients. However, this position conflicts with the physician’s duty to save his patients. Although a patient may be terminally ill, a physician’s first duty is to save the patient’s life rather than to put an end to it.(Blakeney 325). A physician who fails to perform this duty will be morally responsible for the failure in performance of his/her duty to save. In the case of terminally ill patients, when treatment is futile and serves no useful purpose, there may be some justification for a physician to withdraw or withhold treatment, since the patient may no longer be legally entitled to receive the treatment.(www.studentbmj.com). However, this must be clearly distinguished from euthanasia, where the physician actively participates in bringing about the death of a person and is therefore guilty of an act of homicide. A physician’s active involvement in the death of a patient may not be justified, either in a moral or ethical sense, the way it may be justified in withdrawal of futile treatment. From an ethical stand point, the Rights Approach in ethics is based upon the principle that every individual has a fundamental right to be respected and must be allowed to lead his or her life. If this freedom is to be provided to an individual, then his or her rights to privacy and autonomy must be respected. On this basis, it would appear that physician assisted suicide may be justified, when it is the patient’s specific, autonomous choice to die. In the case of “’Night Mother”, the protagonist chose of her own free will to die and her autonomy in the matter is to be respected. Since she was not of unsound mind, to the extent that she was not aware of what she was doing or the consequences and ramifications of the act, it may be argued that applying the ethical rights approach, her autonomy and decision are to be respected. Extending this to the case of terminally ill patients, it may be argued that their autonomy must also be respected and if they are of sound mind and choose to die, then the physician must respect their wishes and assist in their suicide. However, there is also another ethical approach that is relevant here. This is the common good approach, where the single factor that will condition whether a decision is ethical or not is whether it is beneficial to the community and works in favor of the common good. On this basis therefore, the principle that will hold good is: “What is ethical is what advances the common good”. (www.scu.edu). While physician assisted suicide may possibly be justified in some instances where the patient is terminally ill and in great pain with little benefit from treatment, allowing this on a generalized principle has many dangers. For instance it could result in an abuse of the vulnerable members of society, since it places the value of terminally ill, disabled or elderly people on a lower footing than those of normal people. Secondly, it may also lead to instances where those who are suffering from depression which can be overcome and who may not be certain about taking the path of death, will request the physician to assist in suicide, merely to escape the difficulties in life. Thirdly, it blurs the line between harming and healing and may well result in an erosion of the trust inherent in the physician patient relationship. Fourthly and most importantly, physician assisted suicide is in contravention of the physician’s duty to save life. From the perspective of the common good therefore, physician assisted suicide should not allowed for the reasons stated above. However, this cannot be a blanket principle, so that physicians should never assist in suicide. There may be some instances when it may be justified in order to respect the rights and autonomy of the individual patients, especially those who are terminally ill. It may be morally and ethically right in the case of terminally ill patients for physicians to withhold treatment and assist in suicide in order to provide them relief from their pain and suffering. Works cited: * “Approaching Ethics” December 4, 2007 * Back, A.L, Wallace, J.I, Starks, H.E and Pearlman R,A. “Physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia in Washington State. Patient requests and physician responses”, Journal of the American Medical Association, 1996, 275 :919-25. * Blakeney, Barbara A. “The clinical care of the aged person: An interdisciplinary perspective”, 1994. Oxford. * Chochinov HM, Wilson KG, Enns M, Mowchun N, Lander S and Levitt M, et al. “Desire for death in the terminally ill”, American Journal of Psychiatry, 1995; 152:1185-91. * Lee MA, Nelson HD, Tilden VP, Ganzini L, Schmidt TA and Tolle SW. “Legalizing assisted suicide-views of physicians in Oregon”, New England Journal of Medicine, 1996; 334:310-5. * “‘Night Mother’ reviewed by Bill Johnson.” December 4, 2007. * Student BMJ. “When treatment is futile: ethical uncertainty and clinical practice”, 1997. November 26, 2007. * Van Der Maas PJ, Van Delden JJ and Pijnenborg L. “Euthanasia and other medical decisions concerning the end of life”, Health Policy, 1992, 22:39-222. Read More