For A-PLus Writer only

Running head: PHYSICIAN-ASSISTED SUICIDE

PHYSICIAN-ASSISTED SUICIDE 4

Physician-Assisted Suicide

Name

Institution

1. Part one: Should Physician-Assisted Suicide be allowed considering the ethical dilemma surrounding the practice?

2. Part two: brief introduction to the topic

Physician-assisted suicide depicts a scenario where doctors are allowed to perform euthanasia, generally termed as the mercy killing, on willing patients who are facing imminent death due to a debilitating and dehumanizing disease or health condition. This topic has gained massive debate over the last two decades with some countries legalizing it. Some of the nations around the globe that have legalized the practice include Belgium, Canada, Netherlands, Columbia, and Luxembourg (Georgetown University, 2018). In the United States, physician-assisted suicide has been legalized in several states including Oregon, Colorado, Montana, California, and Washington DC (Georgetown University, 2018). The critics that support its legalization argue that it helps the patient avoid unnecessary suffering during their last days of life, allows them to die with dignity, and ensures the protection of the autonomy regarding how their life ends. The other set of critics, on the other hand, argue that life is sacred and no man should be allowed to terminate it. They further claim that its legalization would lead to misuse of the practice such that patients and doctors may use it for other purposes other than mitigating the unnecessary pain.

3. Part three: position statement

Physician-Assisted suicide should be allowed.

4. Part four: Supporting reason

As indicated earlier, physician-assisted suicide helps alleviate unnecessary suffering and pain in patients facing imminent death in the near future. Some conditions such as cancer, HIV/AIDS, neural degenerative disorders, and multiple organs failure often incapacitate an individual to the extent that they become bedridden as they await their death. Physicians accurately approximate the expected time of the death of such patients. They could be expected to live for a few days, a few weeks, or a few months. In all that time, the patient faces severe physical pain. Secondly, they are confined to their beds where they consistently battle the emotional and psychological reality of their definite death. This leads to depression, injured dignity, low self-esteem, and great psychological pain. Besides, most of these patients cannot do anything for themselves and have to rely on nurses and other hospital or facility resources. Therefore, allowing them to voluntarily or spontaneously opt for euthanasia not only helps them escape unnecessary pain and ensure the protection of their dignity, but it also allows for preservation of hospital resources that could be used on patients with better prognosis – those that would survive with treatment.

5. Part five: Opposing reason

The main arguments concerning euthanasia that the opposing critics use include the sacred nature of life, availability of medication to treat physical pain, and possible misuse of the practice. They claim that life is sacred and that no one should be allowed to terminate any human life irrespective of the circumstances. They also argue that the physical pain can be managed using the highly regulated opioid painkillers. These painkillers are used sparingly to avoid dependency and addiction. The opposing critics observe that since the client is dying anyway, he or she should be allowed maximum doses of the opioid analgesics since dependence and addiction are inconsequential at their stage of life. These critics further argue that some patients could be coerced by family members or doctors to opt for the mercy killing, which would be a misuse of the practice.

Reference Georgetown University. (2018, January 4). Euthanasia Regulations Around the World. Retrieved from Georgetown University Web site: https://ethicslab.georgetown.edu/euthanasia-map/text.html