Ethical Debate on Assisted Suicide - Essay Example

Ethical Debate on Assisted Suicide Ethical Debate on Assisted Suicide Assisted suicide is the intentional giving of prescription medicine to induce death to a terminally ill patient. This aims to give them a peaceful death. In some countries, the debate as to whether this is acceptable has taken centre stage for a long time (Paterson, 2008). Some of the problems that arise come from the religious quarters that might see it as being wrong. This is since they believe that nobody has the right to play God. The request for an assisted suicide must come from the patient. The patient must be in a position to make sound, medical judgements as to what they want. They must also be capable of administering the medication on their own. This paper will review the debate over assisted suicide, and how involved stakeholders constantly grapple with varied issues when confronting assisted suicide in these modern times. There are three fronts from which to look at the debate. These are social, religious, and political fronts. All these fronts have reasons as to why assisted suicide should, or should not exist (Battin, Rhodes, & Silvers, 1998). The rapid development in science and technology has enabled medical practitioners all over the world to find ways and means to cure the sick. Medicine capable of curing many illnesses is at the world’s disposal. These advances have enabled the world to sustain the lives of people whose capabilities as humans cannot be restored. As this technology pulls people away from death, pleas to end the lives of tortured patients are getting louder. Many people believe that if one person is in excruciating pain and cannot be helped by modern medicine, they owe that individual the courtesy to end their pain. Suicide in some constitutions, in the world today, is not considered a crime. However, assisted suicide is, and it is a punishable offense in a court of law (Battin, Rhodes, & Silvers, 1998). It is, therefore, a moral issue that generates such intense controversy. There are many people who are involved in assisted suicide. This is either directly or indirectly (Battin, Rhodes, & Silvers, 1998). However, physicians are considered the most vulnerable parties in these cases. This is because; as people believe they have the knowledge and intellect to aid a person in committing suicide. People believe that it is not in the best interests of a physician to give advice to their patients about lethal drugs. Oaths are administered to ensure that physicians stick to helping their patients. The psychological standing, also seen as the social standing, is vital over this issue. Socially, people believe that they have a responsibility to themselves, and those around them. This means that for all those that want to commit suicide, they have to think of all those that are around them, and the impact this might have on them once they die. Religion, on the other hand, ensures that anyone who thinks of taking their life or the life of another knows that it is a sin. This serves as a caution to anyone who might think of taking their life in order to escape suffering. They believe that they might condemn themselves to eternal damnation (Battin, Rhodes, & Silvers, 1998). These sparks of hullabaloo are not about to die down anytime soon. In the political front, it is sometimes frighteningly frequent to hear leaders talk about this issue like any other issue that affects people. It is not a light topic that is to be brushed aside, and treated as a normal one (Kopelman, 2001). It should be one that tops the list like the war on terror, or world peace. Leaders who believe that assisted suicide should be made legal think that, those choosing to end their lives should have the fundamental right to do as they choose. This is as long as they are not infringing on other people’s rights such as harming anyone else. There is no legal right that enables one to end their life. However, legislators believe that if one has no capability to make a recovery, they should have the right to end their lives. If they are incapable of doing this on their own accord, they should have someone exercise this right for them. This is the correct definition of assisted suicide, which legislators do not find as being wrong. However, not all of the leaders or legislators find this as something that should be constitutionalised (Paterson, 2008). It is wrong to end the life of another no matter the consequence. Whether one sees the need to ease another’s pain or end their suffering, it is and should always be a punishable offense. Everyone in the world knows of the human ability to distinguish between right and wrong. In this case, a person contemplating suicide must have weighed their options. This means that they have the option of choosing life or death. If they choose death, then the option of staying alive is not appealing to them. This proves that their state while alive is not worth fighting for and that there might be no hope for survival in their current state. Thus, the need to contemplate a dignified death arises (Paterson, 2008). Their moral, ethical, and philosophical standards are tested. These standards are weighed but still the conviction to end their life outweighs all of them to ensure that the patient dies. This is instead of living in anguish and pain (Paterson, 2008). The freedom of thought defines the will of a human being, which is their autonomy. Some people believe that such a principle should be the guiding light to a person’s choices and thoughts. This is since an individual’s actions are seen as a response to their free thoughts by him/her, and everyone one else around them. Some argue that it is the obligation of others to end the suffering and anguish of those in need. Respecting their dignity falls under this category where it is not right to see someone at their worst. This is if one can help it. Today, most of the hospitals are filled with patients who cannot perform any of the normal human functions in a dignified manner. All they look forward to is a life filled with degradation, more suffering and deterioration. When they ask for a dignified end to their lives, it is seen as cruel and inhuman to ignore their pleas and cries. What they do not seem to understand is that, suicide is not a dignified end to any life (Kopelman, 2001). This is regardless of the condition one might be in that makes them think death is the only solution. It is possible for a person in pain, anguish and suffering to ask for help in ending their life. However, people should realize that being in such a state for a long time could cloud one’s judgement. This is when it comes to rational thinking about what the best options, or choices are for them at the time. People believe that it is not in the best interests of those suffering to choose when to die since their sanity is questioned. When one party is at a level where they cannot make the choice for themselves and have to involve another party on their behalf, this is seen as another issue (Kopelman, 2001). When this happens, it questions whether the second party has the full capacity to do as the first party wishes. Sometimes the question as to whether they truly represent the other party’s wishes to die arises. This debate has seen many people face the law for taking it upon themselves to end the suffering of others. They are sometimes tried for murder in the states that they commit these acts. These issues are the basis from which assisted suicide in the world today thrive (Kopelman, 2001). Most people argue against such actions since they believe they have a moral and ethical obligation to those suffering. They believe in cultures that cannot allow them to participate in the death of another human being. These cultures could stem from different things, for instance, religious backgrounds, laws of the land, and/or the social guidelines incorporated in society (Gorsuch, 2009). In light of this, people think it wise to avoid situations that may make them break such norms, and go against the wishes of those around them. More opponents of this issue have certain claims. They suggest that society has a duty and obligation to oppose laws put in place that put innocent lives at risk (Gorsuch, 2009). Laws that will sanction assisted suicide, or allow for it to happen will pose such a threat. Therefore, these laws should be resisted at all cost. Many view assisting suicide as a form of mercy and compassion. However, there is likely going to be a thin line between assisting in suicide for those who need it, to those whose lives one might deem worthless. This means that people might choose to advice and persuade another to commit suicide since they are of some inconvenience to them. When do people stop from making these decisions once they realise that another person’s life is not worth living? When does one decide that a certain quality of life is worth living, but not another? What happens to those that make the choice to die, but later change their mind, but cannot express these wishes due to their present deplorable state? No life is worth taking, regardless of their wishes, and/or current health state (Weir, 1997). There is the justification that human beings have the right to choose the so-called dignified death. Human beings are not pets that might be put out of their misery due to old age, sickness, or injury. Some believe that when life is devoid of everything except suffering, pain, and anguish, it is in the best interest of an individual to not sustain it any longer. This means that the power to end, or sustain it should be left to the individual, and nobody should take that away from them (Gorsuch, 2009). It is almost impossible for this debate to have an end. Not with all the reasons given today on what is right, and what is wrong. Choosing to end one’s life with dignity is the comprehensive reason one might give in the event they reach such a position. The moral obligation that might be present should act as a reason as to not do as one chooses, or wishes (Weir, 1997). Physicians are bound by the oaths they take before taking office to do right by their patients. So what if the patient wants help in committing suicide to end his/her suffering? Is it in the physician’s book to have, or lack rationale to such a request? These are some of the questions they have to deal with each and every day in their line of work (Gorsuch, 2009). Enabling or assisting in suicide for physicians is unethical. There are many alternatives that can aid in alleviating pain and suffering for patients. Euthanasia, and/or assisted suicide are not the only way to help someone suffering. The learning of such methods could assist in avoiding controversy from all quarters (Weir, 1997). As seen earlier, the ethical standard on assisted suicide lies in the eye of society. Once people believe it is wrong, then it becomes frighteningly hard to convince them otherwise. In many cases, physicians may find themselves pressured into a patient’s desires to commit suicide. However, it is also not right to push someone into doing something they have deep convictions about, especially when it comes to such matters (Weir, 1997). It is also fair that a physician, and his/her ethical standards are understood for there to be a balance between doing what is right in the eyes of the patient, and public. In conclusion, it is only right to understand that the case against, or for assisted suicide is monumental. This is to all the parties involved, both directly and indirectly. The issues or points raised that appeal to the compassion and obligations to those suffering are immense. Also, those against the practice give a significant case against those who wish to give in to the pressure. They give the reason as to how one can lose respect for life when it comes down to the final decision. Moreover, they think of the effects such decisions may have on the individual who is left to give a ruling on the life of another. This debate will continue to take precedence over the lives of many people (Paterson, 2008). How they choose to confront it will determine how they think of themselves, and their immediate society. References Battin, P. M., Rhodes, R., & Silvers, A. (1998). Physician assisted suicide: Expanding the debate. London: Sage Publishers. Gorsuch, N. M. (2009). The future of assisted suicide and euthanasia. New York: Bantam Books. Kopelman, L. M. (2001). Physician-assisted suicide: What are the issues? New York: PULP. Paterson, C. (2008). Assisted suicide and euthanasia: A natural law ethics approach. New York: McGraw Hill. Weir, R. F. (1997). Physician-assisted suicide. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Read More