Project Draft
Miss LiaB0321
PAPERFORLO3.docx2
Physician Assisted Suicide: Right to Die
We all die. The right to die lies only in natural causes. Having a physician assist patient to end their lives enable these individuals to stop their suffering and ensure them that death will be on their terms with dignity, and in peace. Physician-assisted suicide is not a new phenomenon since pain has always remained a part of human experience and existence.
Since the beginning of medical practice, requests to end their suffering through using physician-assisted suicide or euthanasia have been reported. Based on recent studies, 57 percent of physicians practicing in the United States today at some points have received a request for physician-assisted suicide in one form or another. Physician-assisted suicide is different from euthanasia, which is defined as the act of assisting individuals with their death to end their disease suffering.
This topic has remained highly controversial in the United States. In Oregon, of 383 patients for whom prescriptions were written during 2021, 219 (57%) ingested the medication; 218 died from ingesting the medication, and one patient ingested the medication but regained consciousness before dying from the underlying illness (Oregon Health Authority, 2021).
Physician-assisted suicide is fundamentally incompatible with the role of a physician as a healer, presents real challenges to control, and would pose severe societal negatives. Based on the Supreme Court ruling of 1997 (Washington v. Glucksberg), the Due Process clause as explained in the 14th Amendment does not guarantee a person the right to physician-assisted suicide, and therefore physician-assisted death should not be legalized or allowed to be practiced in the United States. The practice defies the role of medical professionals and should be discarded from the job.
History of Physician-Assisted Suicide
The first thing that comes to people’s mind when the word “assisted suicide or euthanasia” is mentioned, it was a long battle and controversy that started in the year of 1938. Euthanasia Society of America (ESA) was founded by the Rev. Charles Potter in New York. The right-to-die issue did not reach the mass agenda until the 1970s when Karen Ann Quinlan’s situation captured the attention of the nation (In Re Quinlan, 355 A.2d 647, 1976). Quinlan called attention to the problem of vegetative and comatose patients receiving intrusive and expensive treatment to which, given the choice, these individuals might not have consented. In 1976 California became the first state to give patients the right to specify, in a living will, the kind of treatment they wanted or would refuse in the case of a terminal illness. California’s lead stimulated a surge of innovation in several other western states in 1977, and nearly every state legislature soon had one or more right-to-die proposals before it (Smith,14)
In the 1990s, Jack Kevorkian (1928-2011) also referred to as “Doctor Death” assist the death of Janet Adkins, who has early stages of Alzheimer’s disease. Kevorkian, advocate right to die, attempted to further his cause by euthanizing a terminally man on videotape in 1998 and providing the footage to the CBS television show 60 minutes. After continuing to assist at least 130 people’s deaths, Kevorkian was arrested and found guilty of second-degree murder and sentenced to 10-25 years behind bars in Michigan.
In the year 1994, Oregon was the first state that considers assisted suicide; however, the “Death with Dignity Act” was narrowly approved by voters. Currently, a total of 11 states signed the right-to-die bills into law, including Maine. Afterward, many states followed suit. It an important to note that many organizations, especially the human rights movements and Christian unions continue to oppose this issue of assisted death strongly. This means that the world has a long way to go if a united decision is to be made concerning this matter (Steck et al., 2013).
Beginning in the mid-20th century and continuing into the 21st century, the culture of “medicalization of death” and its dramatic impact on all discussions about dying, physician assistance in dying, the training of physicians, their relationship with patients, the health care system, and the right to die in the 21st century. This contemporary culture, some belief, has “subjected dying patients to too many treatments, denying them a peaceful death” (Ball, 2).
Physician-Assisted Suicide Corrupts the Practice of Medicine and Distorts Physician-Patient Relationship
Is physician-assisted suicide right or wrong? This question always draws mixed responses and arguments from the public. Physician-assisted suicide is a form of murder that gives a doctor the power to aid patients, most of them suffering from terminal illnesses, the right to end their lives to escape the pain. The doctor can achieve this by introducing a lethal dose of medicine into the blood system of his or her patient which results in a painless death. In many cases, the patient always permits the doctor to carry out such procedures even though in rare cases, family members can also choose to go that way if the patient has no chance of surviving. Even though physician-assisted suicide is something that most terminally ill patients want to embrace, it is illegal, unethical, and immoral.
Administering physician-assisted suicides also go against the most basic work ethics of doctors. Physicians work under oath to always protect and save patients’ lives. Thus, doctors who aid the death of their patients always go against the Hippocratic Oath that every one of them takes before they embark on their practice of being doctors. In the American healthcare system, doctors are considered “second gods” in the sense that they are often turned to in the event of medical adversities. In the hospital, most families and the sick often depend on the physician to provide support and chart a healing process. However, if physician-assisted suicide is allowed, doctors are not only turned into killers, but the practice of medicine is also corrupted.
The American Medical Association rejects the practice in the following terms: “Allowing doctors or physicians to participate in assisted suicide would cause greater harm than good. Physician-assisted suicide is fundamentally incompatible with the role of a physician as a doctor, would be impossible or difficult to control, and would set a serious risk to the society” (American Medical Association, 2014). Apart from the American Medical Association, about 3.4 million nurses represented by the American Nurses Association are opposed to the practice since it violates the ethical traditions of nursing and the code for nurses (Yang, & Curlin, 2016). The method of medicine should provide hope to the weak and vulnerable. However, legalizing assisted suicide not only endangers the weak and helpless but also turns an honorable doctor into a murderer.
Physicians cannot help in the recovery process by killing patients or assisting them to kill themselves. The American Medical Association asserted that doctors or physicians rightly seek to relieve the pain and suffering and eliminate the disease. However, they may prolong their lives but eliminating the disease is not favorable to others. Therefore, allowing physicians to assist in killing their patients threatens to corrupt the defining goal of the medical profession.
Many professional groups and associations which represent vulnerable persons are opposed to physician-assisted suicide, which include the American Psychiatric Association, the American Medical Association, the American Association of People with Disabilities, and the World Health Organization. Physicians, nurses, and other medical professionals are strongly opposed to physician-assisted suicide since the practice of medicine is not a morally neutral act of only technical skills. Doctors are not practicing medicine merely to fulfill the desires of consumer patients.
There is adequate evidence to prove that physician-assisted suicide is distorting the relationship between doctors and patients. Assisted suicide not only corrupts medical professionals and the practice of medicine but also affects patients since it threatens to harm the physician-patient relationship (May, 2017). Patients’ trust in doctors is significantly reduced, and doctors have an undivided commitment to the healing process of their patients. The laws applicable in the country shape our culture, and these perceptions shape shared beliefs, which in turn form how people behave.
Counterargument
People, groups, and associations supporting physician-assisted suicide argue that it can benefit many terminally ill patients who are going through excruciating pain and suffering since it gives them a second chance to assume control over the life that had been taken over by the disease or chronic illness. These factions argue that physician-assisted suicide should be supported in all American states since patients with terminal diseases deserve the right to have a second chance that would allow them to decide the exact moment, they would want to end their lives.
Competent patients, as defenders of personal autonomy argue, have the right to self- rule – to choose among medically recommended treatments and refuse any treatment they do not want (Lane, 24). A typical line used in forcing this argument down the throats of the opponents is that if PAS is legalized, no one will be forced to use it. The only patient who desperately needs and “qualify” for it would be allowed to take the option.
Conclusion
Physician-assisted suicide should not be legalized. In fact, it is both biblically and ethically wrong for a physician to help with death. The ongoing controversy about physician-assisted suicide should be ended by illegalizing any discussion around the practice. Even for the six states that have legalized PAS, there should be serious discussions around the loopholes in such legislation, especially looking at the physician-patient relationship and what such laws can do to vulnerable groups such as people with disabilities or the mentally ill.
This practice will always be wrong and should be talked about around the area of ethics of medical professionals and the right to life as provided for in the constitution of the United States. Even in American states where the practice is legal, there is not much demand for physician-assisted suicide. People with chronic illnesses or suffering from terminal problems may not be in the correct state of mind to make decisions about life and death. Most significantly, if such weighty choices are left to the patient, what would be the role of palliative care?
A private choice to die with dignity or to live has no right to be judged. As a society, we have the free will to the decision on what we desire and options to walk through, however, having options does not always mean exercising them.
References
Ball, Howard. "Background and History." The Right to Die: A Reference Handbook, ABC-CLIO, 2017, pp. xxiv-55. Contemporary World Issues. Gale eBooks, link.gale.com/apps/doc/CX7361700011/GVRL?u=maine_orono&sid=bookmark-GVRL&xid=6dcd5a86. Accessed 15 Nov. 2022.
Bolt, Eva Elizabeth, et al. “Can Physicians Conceive of Performing Euthanasia in Case of Psychiatric Disease, Dementia or Being Tired of Living?” Journal of medical ethics, U.S National Library of Medicine, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25693947/. Accessed 15 Nov. 2022.
Lane Mark. Death and Dying : End-Of-Life Controversies. 2014th ed. Gale Cengage Learning 2015. Accessed 10 Dec. 2022.
May, Larry. Applied Ethics: A Multicultural Approach. 6th Edition ed., Routledge, https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315097176, Accessed 15 Nov. 2022.
Golden, Marilyn, and Tyler Zoanni. “Killing us softly: the dangers of legalizing assisted suicide.” Disability and health journal vol. 3,1 (2010): 16-30. doi:10.1016/j.dhjo.2009.08.006
“Oregon's Death with Dignity Act.” Oregon Health Authority : Oregon's Death with Dignity Act : Death with Dignity Act : State of Oregon, https://www.oregon.gov/oha/PH/PROVIDERPARTNERRESOURCES/EVALUATIONRESEARCH/DEATHWITHDIGNITYACT/Pages/index.aspx
Smith J. Donald. Right-To-Die Policies in the American States : Judicial and Legislative Innovation. LFB Scholarly Pub 2002. INSERT-MISSING-DATABASE-NAME http://site.ebrary.com/id/10044279. Accessed 17 Nov. 2022.
Steck, Nicole et al. “Euthanasia and assisted suicide in selected European countries and US states: systematic literature review.” Medical care vol. 51,10 (2013): 938-44. doi:10.1097/MLR.0b013e3182a0f427
Radbruch, Lukas et al. “Euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide: A white paper from the European Association for Palliative Care.” Palliative medicine vol. 30,2 (2016): 104-16. doi:10.1177/0269216315616524
“Code of Medical Ethics.” Ama, https://www.ama-assn.org/delivering-care/ethics/code-medical-ethics-overview.
Yang, Y. Tony, and Farr A. Curlin. " Why Physicians Should Oppose Assisted Suicide." JAMA.
2016;315(3):247–248. doi:10.1001/jama.2015.16194
