Physician Assisted Suicide - Essay Example

Toward Moral Consensus In developing a consensual argument for physician-assisted suicide, this paper argues that the two key principles—valuing theautonomy of patients and improving their health or wellbeing— provide the basis to the argument that competent patients or the representatives of incompetent patients are permitted to decline any life-sustaining intervention and to select from among existing alternative medications or treatments. Rigid compliance with these two principles in informing physicians’ decisions or judgments as guardians, relievers, and healers of the lives of their patients that must be at the moral core of medical practice, and these two principles uphold physician-assisted suicide when competent patients consent or request for it. In contrast, what must be eliminated or avoided is a devotion to preserve the lives of patients without consideration of whether they prefer to continue living or deem their preservation to be in their best interest. Therefore, the moral consensus here is to value the autonomy of patients who are capable of making competent decisions by themselves. However, it is important to add that the carrying out of assisted suicide should be exclusively granted to physicians only. Primarily, physicians would certainly be engaged in several vital procedural precautions needed to a justifiable performance of assisted suicide, like making sure that the patient is adequately briefed or informed about his/her health status, possible outcome, and potential treatments and making sure that every rational or sensible steps have been taken to enhance the patient’s condition and quality of life. Moreover, physicians have the necessary expertise or knowledge of the needed procedures and instruments for performing assisted suicide successfully and hence can be helpful in preventing unsuccessful or harmful efforts by the patient to commit suicide that merely aggravates the condition of the patient. A required protection against misuse of any legal validation of assisted suicide is to restrict who is granted rights to carry them out so that those individuals will be answerable to their use of such power. Physicians are the right individuals to whom such power may be sensibly limited. Anticipating Objections The strongest argument against physician assisted suicide and the moral consensus discussed above states that allowing physicians to carry out assisted suicide would be in conflict with their core professional and moral vow as doctors to provide care and protection to patients and preserve their lives. Furthermore, if physician assisted suicide became widespread, patients would become fearful that a treatment was given not to care or cure but rather to kill and would hence begin to distrust their physicians. If allowing physicians to take lives or kill would weaken the fundamental moral core of medical practice, then most likely physicians must not be allowed to carry out assisted suicide. But the question is how credible is this argument? If physician assisted suicide are limited to instances wherein they are really voluntary or deliberate, then no patient must worry about receiving one either unless s/he has consented it on his/her own will. Furthermore, the basic interest of patients who have terminal illness to have power over their care that has motivated the debates over the issue of assisted suicide further blurs the supposed loss of patients’ confidence in their physicians. Worry about loss of control must be reduced, not heightened if physician assisted suicide is allowed. This would grant terminally ill patients power over their own failing bodies in cases where there is no available life-sustaining intervention to be removed or suppressed, or where awaiting death from previous medication will give the patient with a considerably more dreadful death. Increasing the availability of quality palliative care and other treatment options will certainly contribute to the reduction of requests for physician assisted suicide. This involves steps like enhancing the accessibility of hospice care, advancing physician preparation and education in the standards and medical tenets of palliative care, funding for palliative care, and building open and effective communication between patients and health care professionals. However, if a patient’s condition is hopeless or incurable, then the principle of autonomy or competence in decision making comes into the picture. Public policy grants competent patients the authority to decline any treatment, as well as life-sustaining intervention, and thus grants more importance to valuing the patient’s autonomy concerning his/her own life. The judgment of the law regarding this issue in support of autonomy acknowledges not just the deeply entrenched position of that ideal in our legal, cultural, and moral institutions but also the situation that when a competent person declines life-sustaining intervention. Nevertheless, our cultural and moral institutions are also in conflict about how such values must be balanced or deliberated when they clash. Rational individuals can and do differ about how such disagreement must be settled when an obviously meaningful life is being surrendered by a competent individual. In a similar case wherein an individual with an obviously meaningful, useful life demanded physician assisted suicide, physicians should decline. However, some physicians would be eager to take part in assisted suicide only if they agree to the patient’s assessment that his/her life is not worthwhile anymore. But this is not the moral consensus that this paper is arguing for. Right of self-determination should be given to competent patients who have terminal illness or are undoubtedly living worthless and severely painful lives. This same right should not be granted to those who can still be cured by alternative treatments or are undoubtedly living meaningful and useful lives. This objective of giving a patient with a more favorable death is related to the argument against physician assisted suicide, that they are in no way required since it is always the option of suppressing or removing hydration and nutrition from a patient, which will lead to his/her death without resorting to the involved and more questionable techniques of assisted suicide. There are, for valid justifications, compelling moral reserves to performing this, but even if it is likely it might not be viewed only as declining life-sustaining medication but rather as taking the life of the patient. This method would also lead to pain and suffering for the patient. In some instances, the outcome of limiting the measures that can be administered in order to speed up death to abandoning life-support would be a considerably more painful and agonizing death for the patient. Therefore, the moral consensus is to find means or measures for speeding up death that are the most humane, dignified, and in accordance to what the patient prefers. Conclusion Those in favor of physician assisted suicide cite utilitarian and rights based principles to justify their arguments. Within the utilitarian perspective, supporters claim that physician assisted suicide can reduce the suffering of terminally ill patients and lessen the possibility of patients committing suicide. Within the rights based perspective, they argue that patients have autonomy or the right to make a decision for oneself; hence, patients can refuse treatment if they find their lives unbearable and worthless. On the other hand, those against physician assisted suicide also used utilitarian and rights based framework to defend their claims. From a utilitarian point of view, physician assisted suicide is a slippery slope since it will lead to disorder in the medical field and violation of medical ethical principles. From the rights based approach, physician assisted suicide is not a solution to the problem because it kills the patient, not relieve him/her from suffering. They also argue that there are other ways to relieve patients’ suffering like palliative care and hospice. The moral consensus proposed by this paper states that physician assisted suicide should only be allowed if the patient is terminally ill and incurable. However, consent to carry out physician assisted suicide should be given by a competent patient. If, on the other hand, a competent patient wants to forgo a worthwhile and useful life the physician should decline to perform assisted suicide. Also, physicians should refuse to perform assisted suicide if there are still alternative treatments available for the patient. Read More