Right to Die - Coursework Example

Abstract

Everyone is entitled to have a safe and quality life with rights to choose their actions. However, the decision on the right to die is contested based on the different views of death by religions, traditions, healthcare provider and government. These bodies hold the view that an individual does not have a right to ownership of life and thus should be granted the decision to choose their death. Drawing away the right to die denies patient in terminal illness or those inflicted by incurable disease a chance to die in dignity, compassionate and humane way. The paper is focused on highlighting key factors which support that people should be honored by being granted the right to die. The views against the right to die are based on unsubstantiated arguments which are clearly shown in the paper. It is concluded that there should a consensus between the proponent and opponent on allowing the right to die through setting a framework which will guide on how this right will be executed and the offenders to be dealt with lawfully. Right to Die

Introduction

Life is considered a gift, but so it comes with its sour burden of death. Sadly, death cannot be avoided and when the grim of death approaches it comes with severe pain, desolation, and helplessness to those afflicted with a terminal illness (Steck et al., 2014). Therefore, those with a terminal illness should be at least allowed to choose when death strikes and how. Death is part of the stages of life but when it comes to a decision that who has the right to make the call for his/her death a distasteful debate arises. Markedly, this raises questions do an individual own his/her life and if so do they have a right to take their life? But it should be within our rights to choose how to die when the surrounding circumstances warrant it.

The right to die in this paper is discussed in the perspective of euthanasia and physician-assisted death. Of which the two are related to our right to self-determination and bodily autonomy. Even after a decade of debate the question still lingers on the millions of American with most agreeing that one has a right to die especially when in critical health condition (Chapman, 2015). However, that thought is heavily refuted by a religious group, doctors, and patient rights organizations. Noticeably, this is affiliated with the cultural, historical and religious reticence of suicide. The Christians have a notion that death is sacred and in order to support the sanity of life it is within the domain of God to end life, and no man should try interfering with God`s plan. On the contrary, an emeritus archbishop of Cape Town by the name of Desmond Tutu said on his 85th birthday that he would choose assisted death to end his life (Tutu, 2016). Additionally, the cultural values consider taking life as a taboo. The physician decision is divided based on the thin line that separate relief dying from killing (Purvis, 2012). The injunction of to “do no harm” plays the role of encumbering efforts to allow patient autonomy. The government, in turn, holds the same paternalistic view against the ownership of death.

The topic is of significance as it concerns most people in the United States but the religious and moral ethics stance debate back and forth that they have respect and compassion for death (Math & Chaturvedi, 2012). It becomes sad when the law obstructs terminally ill people from right to die when euthanasia or physician-assisted death is the only hope that can half the agony they are experiencing. Currently, countries such as Netherland, Luxembourg, Belgium, and Switzerland as well as some states such as California, Vermont, New Mexico, Montana, Washington, and Oregon have allowed it, and the legislation is being brought to other states (Macleod, 2012). Some of the reasons which elicited the legalization of the right to die in California is the highly shouted case of 29 year Brittany Maynard who was suffering cancer and was in terminal stage and had to travel with his husband to Oregon in order to get euthanasia (Ziegler, 2016). As in most jurisdiction, one has no right to die then it is clear that they insist it is ethically correct and less repugnant a person is ravaged by the disease until they die from it rather than have the right to die by choosing a considerate and compassionate way to die.

The supporters of euthanasia and physician-assisted death to call it “right to die” while the opponents term it “assisted suicide.” Patients suffering from terminally ill ailments and having a short duration to live preferably less than six months should be allowed to die peacefully in the presence of their families and loved ones (Stutzki, Schneider, Reiter-Theil & Weber, 2012). Therefore, the government should provide the competent patient the right to die so long as effective mechanisms are placed to ensure that there is no abuse (Math & Chaturvedi, 2012). The argument presented is that patients should be granted the right to die through euthanasia or physician-assisted death in the time and manner of their choosing. I hold the same sentiment as Stephen Hawking who strictures the actions of keeping someone alive against their wishes and describe it as “ultimate indignity” (Chapman, 2015). The purpose of this paper is to comprehensively elucidate that an individual has a right to die as it is moral and absolute especially in the heated debated whether one has the right to take their own life or assisted to end their life while suffering from incurable or terminal illness.

Reasons to Support Right to Die

Although euthanasia and physician-assisted death are usually lumped together, there is a distinct difference between the two terms. Euthanasia is done for the fundamental purpose of relieving pain through active or passive intentional killing (Rodrigues Torres, 2015). Active euthanasia occurs when a patient takes medication or lethal injection causing his/her death while passive euthanasia is when a patient refuses to eat and this lead to their death. Contrary, physician-assisted death involves a proxy particularly a doctor who provides the patient with information and help of ending his/her own life for the sole purpose of relieving pain (Steck et al., 2014).

There are numerous valid reasons which support an individual right to die. One of the pragmatic reasons which validate a person right to die is to end their suffering and pain. Evidently, anyone, who has been or has dealt with an individual who is impending death or terminally ill they have witnessed and knew the pain these people go through at the end of their life (Ziegler, 2016). Since there is no rational reason for prolonging the life of an individual who does not want live as their life is filled with pain and suffering an individual has the right to die either through euthanasia or physician-assisted death (Barbuzzi, 2014). The society too has the role of lessening the suffering and pain of such people by granting them their will so that they can die a dignified death where they know that the decision to die was theirs.

Secondly, the reason for consenting to the right to die is to save the cost of hospitalization incurred by terminally ill patients who do not have a chance of surviving. The patient should be allowed to make the call to end their life when the cost of keeping them alive in machine increases substantially (Macleod, 2012). Some of the patients who have the debilitating disease can choose to end their lives rather than living for long without the hope of getting better at the expense of their families and taxpayers. The medical technology can be unsuccessful in saving a patient life, and despite that, there is a high cost attached to that. Supporting life is expensive, and there are only a few affluent terminally ill patients in the hospital who can be able to cater for their cost of prolonging their lives while the rest not-so-affluent leave the burden to their families (Smith et al., 2012). Those close to the patients suffer unbearable pain in seeing their loved one fading away and a ready to do anything to save their life. Normally, the immediate families do not consider the cost of medication at the expense of their loved ones, and when they die, they are subjected to huge hospital bills which imperil them to financial ruins. Evidently, it has been estimated that the cost of maintaining a dying patient ranges between 2,000 to 10,000 dollars a month (Steck et al., 2014). A competent patient knows the fees associated with supporting their life and how the hospital bills skyrocket every day. Plus most terminally ill patient desire their death to be a consolation and peaceful as possible and save their families the expense of keeping their lives on pointless (Stutzki, Schneider, Reiter-Theil & Weber, 2012). However, leaving their families and relatives in financial ruins in far away from consolation thus by granting this patient the right to die they can be able to ease the financial burden to their families.

By allowing an individual the right to die they can be able to offer life to others. When one is allowed to choose their death the process is premeditated and thought of which means that in case one decides to offer the organ, they will be in good state and well preserved. In particular, the vital organs will be in a good state than in old age death or traumatic death, and the organs will allow saving the lives of others (Smith et al., 2012). Normally, this will depend on an individual decision. As a proponent of the right to die I find it kind of hypocrite for the government in 37 states and probably more to come has allowed the right to gay marriage as they can no longer try to dictate how adults consent to sex yet they deny people right to make a decision about their death (Ziegler, 2016).

The major controversy which limits allowing the right to die is that people lack to clearly differentiate the right to die and the right to kill. Just as one has the freedom and the right to live and live well, then one should be allowed to the right to die and to die with dignity (Barbuzzi, 2014). Allowing the right to die through euthanasia or physician assisted death does not mean that it is pass to allow doctors to take life as they wish since all that process and all cases will involve explicit consent. As a result, this will limit any form of coercing of the patient to make their decision. On that note, the right to die can be viewed as an inherent right which does not require to be denied (Math & Chaturvedi, 2012). The right to die can be a viewed as giving a dying person the liberty to pursue their happiness. As the law is usually impartial, it should allow a person to decide. The terminally ill patient should be allowed the right to die as their last exercise of autonomy. The perspective of this should be viewed as the last active choice being made rather than a person wanting to die.

Medical science is the greatest gift to mankind and through the current medical technology, there has been a remarkable feat in prolonging the life of patients. The respirator, for instance, can be able to support the failing lungs and there are medications which are able to sustain the normal physiology of the body for a longer period. It is therefore beyond any reasonable doubt that in a patient with any chance of surviving an illness or fatal accident medical technology will be able to ensure that (Steck et al., 2014). Medications and technology have the primary objective of healing patients and alleviating suffering. However, this is not the case for the terminally ill patients as the two approaches results to prolonging suffering and pain to the patient. Even, pain specialist affirms that there are times when pain medication does not suffice. Consequently, in the best interest of the terminally ill patient, the right to die should be granted as it is the only best available option to terminate the agony which medications cannot cure (Macleod, 2012). And if the right to die and ownership of life is denied now and the current state of technological improvement such as cryonics and even possible brain plastination and the increasing effectiveness we can continue to live more and longer and one day we might come to a state of living indefinitely which will definitely result to a state of dystopia (Math & Chaturvedi, 2012). Obviously, this is not getting too far ahead of myself as the issue of the right die is of significance to right here and now as it is for the future.

Evidence That Support the Thesis Statement

Oregon was the first state to legalize and permit right to die through the use of fatal medications to the patients having less than six months to live. However, the process follows a specific procedure, and certain criteria are considered before any patient is granted that right (Purvis, 2012). Normally, the patient has to request the permission to end their life through an oral request in two separate occasions 15 days apart and the last one in writing and the presence of witnesses (Purvis, 2012). Two doctors are involved in the process who ascertains that the patient is mentally stable and provide him/her with other available options.

The law to allow the right to die in Oregon took effect in 1997. The move was highly criticized with many options being but forward to deter the process. The critics delineated that the action will but pressure on patients making them to killing themselves, put the poor in jeopardy, dry up a hospice and distort medicine practice (Purvis, 2012). The bioethicist warned that passing the law will result in far-reaching and devastating outcomes. To the dismay of most, the fears projected have yet to be realized. Notably, the law has limited impacts and apparently there is a rarity in abuses. In fact, it has resulted in modesty and beneficial results. In 4 million people State and 34,000 deaths annually, only 39% of people have used the law out of less than 80 people who have been granted (Purvis, 2012). There has not been an apparent decrease in palliative care actually 93% of the people who proceeded with the process were from hospice care. The majority of people who have partaken in the process have not been from the impoverished members of the needy group but are mostly white and people with college degree rather than people with high school level of education.

However, the critics discount that there cannot be any case of abuses. First, they claim that the report comes from prescribing doctors and there is no any verification from independent party meaning the data can be biased. Moreover, they assert that there can be misconducts from irresponsible physicians such as prescribing a lethal drug to a patient in a severe depression that might require therapy and patient who are not terminally ill which might go undetected (Purvis, 2012). However, the Oregon Hospice Association claims that due to the fact the law protects only those doctors who have met the requirements doctors have a high incentive to follow the law. The estimated consequences have not materialized based on the available evidence, and this has made most of the critics to change their opinions (Purvis, 2012). However, there is no any system which lacks errors as mistakes are inevitable making room for such errors to occur. Nevertheless, the prime role should be to respect the right of the patients if they want to hasten their death. As some of the terminally ill patients who cannot endure what awaits them can choose different methods to end their life such as blowing their brain out, stepping in front of the train and jumping off a bridge in areas where the right to die is denied (Purvis, 2012). Such people should be allowed to die in dignity by choosing a better method to die.

According to a study conducted on 2013 by Elizabeth and the associates, it is portrayed that euthanasia and physician-assisted death is rarely used (Loggers et al., 2013). The study noted that terminally ill patients in Washington are not rushing in taking lethal medications. Even after Washington State enacted the Death With Dignity Act three years later only 255 patients had requested for and permitted legal prescription by the physician. Most of the reasons mentioned that influenced the people to participant in the program were a loss of autonomy, loss of dignity and the inability of being involved enjoyable activities. In Washington states there are 50,000 deaths recorded annually and cancer is the second cause of death (Loggers et al., 2013). The study shows that patients are not making these decisions lightly as the number of people who participated in Death with Dignity program is infinitesimal. The study concludes by stating that the Death with Dignity program has been received positively by patients and clinicians.

According to the study conducted in 2012, it is evidently depicted that legalization of euthanasia and patient assisted death does not result to increasing number of deaths in patients with incurable diseases (Stutzki, Schneider, Reiter-Theil & Weber, 2012). The study was focused on patient suffering amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) which is among the list the chronic diseases which patients request euthanasia or physician-assisted death. The study showed that 94% of a patient afflicted by the disease it is not required euthanasia or physician-assisted death, but 57% of the patients thought of it at one point (Stutzki, Schneider, Reiter-Theil & Weber, 2012). The results of this study aptly show that patient have a great desire to take control of their treatment and healthcare by deciding their fate. Hence, by granting the right to die the patient is able to make his/her right will before losing control of his/her mind and body.

Opposing Viewpoints

The right to die is contested as it is assumed that when euthanasia and physician-assisted death is legalized the doctors will coerce patient and the family to end their life with the main of saving the costs that will be incurred in hospitalization (Ziegler, 2016). Thus, the value of life will be lost as people will find the easy way out of diseases by abusing the right to die law. More so, the opponents assert that the slippery slope and lack of safeguard will permit an individual to legally end their lives based on some sheer reasons (Stutzki, Schneider, Reiter-Theil & Weber, 2012). The distrust relationship will develop between the patient and the physician.

To challenge that assertion is the fact those wishing to end their life will do so even when it is illegal. It is important to consider that abuse cannot be evaded with anything concerning humans (Loggers et al., 2013). For instance, take the case of over speeding, despite being illegal people do over speed but that does not allow the laws to be removed and the people not to be allowed to drive. Before one is allowed the right to die they are allowed to explicitly learn and understand the options that are available at they choose the decisions on their own. Furthermore, the patients that are able to a discussion such a sensitive issue as euthanasia are more likely they trust their physician (Purvis, 2012). The view of granting the right to die to salvage the family from financial ruin is also in the best interest of the victim and their family. By making such a decision, the patient can halt the family financial worries, grief, sorrow and misery. In this light, this can be viewed as the patient way of caring for the family. Permitting the right to die can also help in its regulation as through it there will be reporting, and documentation requirements and the real abuses will be recognized and punished (Macleod, 2012). And as it stands, the fears of a slippery slope toward non-voluntary physician-assisted death has not been whatsoever noted anyway.

Some opponents disagree that the patient has the right to end their life. Moreover, they hold the thought that patient assisted death is against the Hippocratic Oath (Smith et al., 2012). In Hippocratic Oath the physician promises to alleviate patient pain and at no time administer lethal medication.

The named view can be thrown down the gauntlet as if the Hippocratic Oath is followed then certain treatment as chemotherapy cannot be used. Chemotherapy is a radioactive medication which lethal to the patient as depicted by its unpleasant side effects such as loss of hair, vomiting and patient suffer incredible pain. Due to this Hippocratic Oath can be used to contest the right to die through the using physician-assisted death. Distinctly, this inconsistency is the reason why Hippocratic Oath is not used in most Canada medical school (Barbuzzi, 2014). Moreover, placing the patient in medical equipment and administering high doses of medication does not save the patient from the illness. By using such as measures to terminally ill patients with no hope of returning them to health can be viewed inappropriate and categorized as bad medicine.

Another fear of the radical opponents of permitting the right to die is that it results in downgrading of the quality of palliative care. However, the available the evidence counteract that claim as for instance Switzerland and Belgium are some of the countries with the best palliative care in Europe, and the quality of palliative care has not reduced in Oregon the state which has allowed right to die since 1997 (Rodrigues Torres, 2015).

Conclusion

Despite the debate being far from over, the right to die should be allowed. Banning of things does not mean that its best solution to end them. For example banning of alcohol and gambling is not a guarantee it will end them. Likewise, banning of the right to die does not change the fact that people will not continue to end their life in a traumatic manner. Thus, the best way is to grant people the right to die so as their families can be able to say their goodbye and people to die in dignity. It is better for the patient with a terminal illness to live well and with dignity the first six months of their final life than suffering in agony for twelve uncertain months. Some hurdles are involved in the process of allowing the right to die but all the parties involved should come to an agreement and permit a well-reasoned death through euthanasia or physician-assisted death that will be beneficial to the society and will alleviate painful and agonizing death. Through allowing the right to die the terminally ill patient will be treated like other healthy citizens by being allowed the right not to suffer. Consequently, their lives will not be reduced to a childlike state of incompetent, sedated, helplessness and diapered. The decision should only be exempt from children suffering imminent death, and such a decision should involve a comprehensive consultation amongst doctors and the parents. The decision of physician-assisted death, however, presents challenges when it comes to a mentally ill patient anguishing in depression as no one wants to make it easier for them to commit suicide while there is a possibility that they can recover and live a joyful life. However, the mental pain is as painful as physical pain as seen by the onlookers. Hence, the patient should gauge their pain and allow physician-assisted death.

When the term euthanasia is used it shade two different lights on people, and the negative connotation of associating it with murder should be cleared. The full picture should be viewed as a right to die as the approach of allowing painless death to those who are inflicted by the incurable or painful disease. The fear that permitting patient right to die will lead to foisting death on vulnerable patients by the rogue doctors, cash-strapped state and misery insurer should be shunned. The right to die however should not be based on the nature of the disease but the practical assessment of the patient condition. When competent adults are being allowed to make irrevocable and momentous choices such as abortion and sex change to mention but a few they should also be granted the right to make a decision pertaining to their death. Consequently, they will be able to die surrounded by their loved ones rather lights and strangers. After reflection on both sides of the debate, it can be concluded that compassionate people will agree with logic and rationale of bestowing the right to die through euthanasia or physician-assisted death of a terminal ill patient as a way to reduce their suffering and detrimental financial effects on hospital and families. Besides, in respect of patient freedom, they should be allowed to choose their fate and close the book of a life lived well.