Assisted Suicide for People with Failing Health - Assignment Example

Argumentative paper on assisted suicide for people with failing health. Thanks to the many benefits of modern science and technology, many people who suffer from serious health conditions can be offered treatment which prolongs life. This sounds like a good thing, but there is a catch: in some cases this longer lifespan comes at the expense of quality of life. When physical and mental suffering become very great it can happen that people request a form of assisted suicide, in order to escape what they experience as an intolerable existence. This raises ethical issues for professionals and for family members because the moral and legal prohibitions which exist to prevent any actions which cause the death of another person, however well-intentioned they might be. American society has a strong cultural value of protection of the sick, as can be seen in the Hippocratic oath that doctors take, and the laws against assisted suicide in most US states. These taboos are very important, because they provide protection for some of the most vulnerable members of society, but there are occasions on which assisted suicide should be allowed, so long as very strict procedural safeguards are followed. Assisted suicide is currently illegal in all but a few of the United States, but there is some evidence that it nevertheless has been occurring even in states where it is outlawed. A nationwide study in 1998 using a stratified sample of over 1902 doctors found that 18.3 per cent of them had received a request on at least one occasion to assist in the suicide of a patient, usually by lethal injection, and that 4.7 per cent had actually administered at least one lethal injection, while another 3.3 per cent had written at least one prescription to be used for this purpose (Meier et al. 1193). This shows that a sizeable proportion of the patient population wishes to have access to assisted suicide, and a few doctors are willing to admit that they have carried out this wish. This evidence proves that legal sanctions do not prevent assisted suicide, and that there is a growing wish in the population at large to have such an option available. A second reason for revisiting the law on assisted suicide, and working out a better way to regulate the whole area of end-of-life-care more thoroughly, is that prohibition in the face of clear demand breeds underground activity which is more risky than a regulated system would be. There may be a much larger number of doctors who have assisted suicide, but are not willing to admit this in public, due to the likelihood of severe legal consequences. There are no doubt also some situations where people who are not medically qualified take such actions, with potentially unforeseen consequences such as unnecessary pain, or unsuccessful attempts and ensuing distress for all concerned. This is clearly not a desirable situation. The distinct and growing gap between what the law says should happen, and what happens on the ground means also that there is a wide scope for unscrupulous or criminal activity to develop. This means that there is a very strong argument for issuing very tight new rules, allowing assisted suicide in carefully regulated contexts, with checks and safeguards in place. In the Netherlands, for example, such a system has been in operation since 2002, and observers have pointed out that this does not result in abuse of patients, since doctors are very slow to reach for this option, and many steps have to be followed before it is allowed (Gorsuch 103). Assisted suicide can be a blessing, and the example of the Netherlands shows that it can operate without harm to the role of medical professionals, and without causing a rush to take advantage of this option. There has been some debate about the Netherlands regime, however, not least because the demographic mix is very different from that of the United States. More than 40 per cent of Dutch people deny any religious alliance while the vast majority of Americans claim to have some religious affiliation or other (Nitschke, 1). This means that it may well be possible to introduce nationwide rulings in a largely secular society, where humanist values prevail, but it is an entirely different matter to set up rules which fly in the face of some of the most basic teachings of Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism and many other faiths. Some would argue that human beings do not have the right to determine the time of death for anyone, not even themselves, because this is a privilege accorded to God alone. All in all, therefore, it is clear that revision of the rules on assisted suicide in the United States is urgently necessary. In order to prevent unlawful medical interventions and relieve the suffering of terminally ill patients, new regulations are necessary. The moral and religious taboos are there for good reason, and should be considered, but at the same time people should have a legal right to choose death. The only way to do this fairly is to devise a humane and rigorous procedural regime that balances the rights of all and safeguards the weak from abuse. Too often science is presented as the evil force in these situations, providing doctors with options that give them too much power to destroy life. It is about time that we learned to step up to the moral challenges that science presents, and make a definitive decision to let people die with dignity. For my relatives, and when the time comes for my own eventual departure from this life, I fervently wish that a legal right to choose death is made available across the whole of the United States. References Gorsuch, Neil M. The Future of Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2006. Print. Meier, Diane E., Emmons, Carol-Ann, Wallenstein, Sylvan, Quill, Timothy, Morrison, R. Sean and Cassel, Christine K. “A National Survey of Physician-Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia in the United States. The New England Journal of Medicine 338 (17), (1998), pp. 1193-1201. [Accessed July 13th, 2012]. Web. Nitschke, Philip. “The Role of Religion in the U.S.” New York Times April 10th, 2012. [Accessed July 13th, 2012]. Web. Read More