Suicide with Physicians Assist - Essay Example

Physician Assisted Suicide Moral Plan Concepts Supporting Side A: Concept from Util: PAD minimizes the amount of suffering that a patient will have to endure before his or her inevitable death Concept 2 from Util: Reduces the number of attempted suicides by the patients. Concept 3 from Rights-based: Right for a patient to live means that he or she should also have the right to die Concept 4 from Rights-based: Right to refuse treatment will lead to death and this is similar to PAD. -- Concepts Supporting Side B: Concept 1 from Util: Physician assisted suicide creates the possibility of the slippery slope Concept 2 from Util: Physician assisted suicide does not directly result in a greater good Concept 3 from Rights-based: Physician assisted suicide violates the rights of the doctor Concept 4 from Rights-based: There is no constitutional law giving individuals the right to die. Physician Assisted Suicide Introduction Moral issues are controversial as they can be interpreted in many different ways, and this problem is further intensified when the moral issue at hand has both positive and negative attributes. Physician assisted suicide is an issue that can be addressed from different ethical perspectives and these can be used to find both supporting and opposing evidence for this act. Many individuals argue in favor of physician assisted suicide on the basis of rights and the ability of an individual to choose what happens to his or her body (Carr, 2010). The issue of rights centered arguments is one that has been utilized by both opponents and proponents in support of their respective positions and these will be assessed in the paper. The paper will also assess assisted suicide through the utilitarian theory which elaborates on the ethical justification for a person to perform a right act if it will bear fruit to some good. Hence, in both ethical approaches the issue is controversial as it can be supported by both proponents and opponents of the argument using the same theory making it difficult to determine the appropriate position. This is a dilemma that is frequently associated with moral issues. Therefore, the aim of the paper is to illustrate the ethical arguments held by proponents and opponents of the rights based perspective to physician assisted suicide as well as the arguments presented by those for or against physician assisted suicide using the utilitarian theory. Arguments Supporting Side A As mentioned above, the utilitarian theory implies that it is acceptable to perform an act that will lead to the greatest good. Hence, in cases of unbearable suffering in diseases that are incurable, physician assisted suicide will result in the greater good of relieving both the family members of the patient and the patient himself from unbearable suffering that will ultimately result in his death (Carr, 2010). Hence, the happiness that is gained through the relief of suffering patients of the patients justifies the lesser action of physician assisted suicide as the patients are already terminal and in the majority of cases death is inevitable. Physician assisted suicide can be in the form of lethal injection of the doctor prescribing the patient medication that would lead to the termination of his or her life. Hence, the summation of this action is that the doctor is minimizing suffering by prescribing lethal medication, and maximizing happiness by relieving the suffering which makes this an achievement of a greater good and in coherence with the utilitarian theory (Carr, 2010). Another concept that is used by the utilitarian theory to support physician assisted suicide is that the physician assisted suicide reduces the number of suicide attempts that are made by the patients which in some cases are unsuccessful and further worsen the pain and condition of the patient. Patients that are suffering from terminal illness are often in a lot of pain and are incapable of performing any substantial actions. These patients include people who have secondary progressive MS or some late stages of cancer. Hence, in this situation, physician assisted suicide is helpful in preventing further suffering for the patients and the complication of their current condition when they attempt suicide. This also illustrates a greater good that is attained from physician assisted suicide making acceptable under the utilitarian approach. As mentioned above many people use the rights based argument for defending physician assisted suicide. The main argument used is that one’s life is in his or her own hands and he or she can do what he wants with it (Paterson & Sorell, 2012). The same argument assesses the fact that an individual has rights to his or her own body; hence, this should include taking one’s own life as it is part of his body. In addition, the case of terminal illness makes this person within his full rights to end his life since he or she also possesses the right to live. The argument is that the two cannot exist separately as every individual has the right to live, and hence should also have the right to take away his or her own life. Since 1991, citizens in the United States have possessed the right to refuse medical treatment (Wilkinson, 2011). In the case when a patient is suffering from a terminal illness refusal of medical treatment will result in the death of this patient. Hence, this is similar to giving the patient the right to take his own life as refusal of treatment is a conscious action that will lead to the end of the patient’s life. If a patient already has the right to stop taking treatment and he knows that this will kill, then it presents the argument that he can also opt for physician assisted suicide which is a more dignified form of death and less painful than what the patient would experience if he or she opted to die by refusal of treatment. Arguments Supporting Side B Many people have also used the utilitarian theory to oppose the act of physician assisted suicide. The argument used in this case is that of the slippery slope (Clark, 2014). Many people believe that allowing physician assisted suicide, even in cases of terminal illnesses, will lead to some even worse outcomes such as disorder in the medical field and the violation of many medical ethical principles. Therefore, according to the utilitarian theory, the greater good does not result from physician assisted suicide as the final effect is a disturbance in the medical field which may lead to the loss of many more lives. Hence, from this viewpoint, physician assisted suicide is unacceptable using the utilitarian theory. Another argument that opponents use against physician assisted suicide is that people believe physician assisted suicide is not a solution to the problem (Wilkinson, 2011). For example, a person who is suffering is not relieved from his suffering by physician assisted suicide, he or she is killed. This is different to solving the problem and sustaining the patient’s life. The suffering is not relieved but instead the life of the patient is taken away. Hence, there is no greater good achieved in this action in terms of the problem at hand. In addition, no one knows what will happen to individuals after death as there are many viewpoints on this subject. Therefore, killing the patient is not a good act in itself and there is no greater good achieved from this action as it only violates the Hippocratic Oath taken by medical practitioners. Hence, physician assisted suicide is unacceptable by the utilitarian theory when one uses the above mentioned argument. The rights argument can also be used to oppose the act of physician assisted suicide. Firstly, the physician who is expected to perform this act has no right to assist in this suicide as he has taken an oath to not perform anything that would be damaging to the patient’s health (Clark, 2014). Hence, this act is not compatible for the physician to perform as a healer. Hence, simply because someone has the right to die, he cannot place the physician in the position whereby he will have to violate his own principles and requirements for fulfilling his role. Another rights argument is that apart from certain states such as Oregon, there is no constitutional law that permits an individual to take away the life of another and this is considered as second degree murder (Carr, 2010). In addition, the rights to this act would affect the legal system as this would bring other laws or activities into question. Individuals who are of this opinion believe that this act will place many questions not only on medical ethics but also pose societal risks. Hence, this illustrates that according to the rights argument there is no right for an individual to take the life of another person and further places jeopardy to other laws making physician assisted suicide incorrect. Conclusion Hence, in summation, there are arguments for both sides using the utilitarian theory and the rights argument. All the points for physician assisted suicide and against it are valid and have moral grounds. Physician assisted suicide is a way of allowing the investable in a situation when the patient is in pain and suffering. However, if such an act is legalized there is no predicting what the future holds in the field of medical ethics as many concepts will be questioned. Furthermore, it would require all physicians to violate their oaths as healers to not perform any actions that would lead to the deterioration of someone’s health. However, the correctness of the arguments depends on the interests that are being represented as from one perspective the patient’s interests are placed by respecting his or her wishes whilst from another the doctor is placed in an inappropriate position. References Carr, M. F. (Ed.). (2010). Physician-assisted Suicide: Religious Perspectives on Death with Dignity. Wheatmark, Inc.. Clark, N. (2014). The politics of physician assisted suicide. Routledge. Paterson, M. C., & Sorell, T. (2012). Assisted suicide and euthanasia: a natural law ethics approach. Ashgate Publishing, Ltd.. Wilkinson, D. J. C. (2011). Highlights from this issue. Journal of Medical Ethics,37(12), 705-705. Read More