criminology writing assignment

Aaron Wibranowski Writing assignment #2 SYG2323.002 A Take On Legalizing Physician Assisted Suicide Abstract The topic of physician assisted suicide and euthanasia has been amongst the most discussed and controversial in recent history. After analyzing other sources, it is clear that in the realm of opinions, this topic is still very well divided. Further investigation shows that the topic is far more complicated than the typical case of physician assisted suicide that we all imagine; that of a terminally-ill patient with unbearable pain, when in fact, there are many other instances where physician-assisted suicide could be, and more importantly, should be an option. To put it briefly, there are four main types of possible cases, two of which are fairly accepted by society, the other two, not so much. This paper will furthermore argue them, while providing strong concrete evidence that they all should be legalized. Introduction The four major cases, or instances of physician-assisted suicide are as follows; when the doctor actively intervenes by powering down the equipment that keeps the patient alive (disconnecting cases), when a patient requests that critical treatment may not be underwent (nonconnecting cases), when a physician or a caregiver provides the necessary lethal drugs to the patient, so that they can commit suicide (drug-providing cases) and lastly, when the physician administer the drugs themselves (drug-injecting cases). Furthermore, the moral stand and arguments for legalization of these four cases will be explored through the analysis of secondary data. Continuously, the Strain theory might explain why there are some cases that are rejected by society, while there are others that are accepted. In addition, a possible primary data collection method will also be considered. The main goal of this paper is to demonstrate that all four cases of physician assisted suicide should indeed be legalized, and society’s structural constraints prevent the population from achieving this goal. Methodology: Secondary Data Analysis According to Thomson (1999) “Acceding to a patient’s request in a disconnecting or nonconnecting case is legally permissible, and just about everyone agrees that that situation is morally permissible. But acceding to a patient’s request in a drug-providing case is on any view illegal in most states and doing so in a drug-injecting case is so too (p. 499).” The main reason why this has come to be is because society sees the infringement of the wish of a patient not to sustain life-saving treatment as a battery, since treatment is seen as something that alters the normal course of life, and by contrast, the refusal to administer a lethal drug is not seen as a battery, because doing so would also be intrusive (Thomson, 1999). Therefore, given that both of them can alter the normal course of life, this argument cannot be used to discredit drug-injecting and drug-providing cases (Thomson,1999). In regard to drug-providing and drug-injecting cases, the most important argument for the opposition has been a moral one. Mainly the difference between killing and letting die (Thomson, 1999). Many define disconnecting and nonconnecting cases as merely letting die, because when a caregiver disconnects a patient, he or she is basically letting nature takes its course, and that is why they are legal and accepted by society in general, but drug-providing and drug-injecting cases are seen as killing, because it is the drug that the physician administers or provides that kills the patient (Thomson, 1999). Furthermore, Thomson (1999) argues that “If a patient is currently being kept alive by a respirator, then nature taking its course is being prevented by the respirator. The doctor who disconnects him from the respirator removes what is preventing nature form taking its course. The doctor intervenes and seems to be most plausibly seen as not letting nature take its course, but rather causing it to (P.501).” This proves to be a compelling argument because it shows just how subjective this argument can be. To put it in simpler words, if someone were to knock out the foundation of a home, they are not just letting gravity take its course, they are intervening, they are indeed causing gravity to take its course (Thomson, 1999). In both scenarios the patient and those in the house would die sooner than they otherwise would. Therefore, Thomson (1999) argues that the difference between killing and letting die has not even been established, which in turn diminishes the argument that drug-providing and drug-injecting cases should be illegal for the mere reason that they are instead considered killing, as oppose to letting die. Moreover, it is important to consider that drug-providing cases do not follow the rationale that the patient is dying by the doctor’s hand, because it is the patient who decides to take the lethal cocktail (Thomson, 1999). This leaves the most challenging case to argue; the drug-injecting case. Thomson (1999) argues that if the doctor killing a patient is immoral, then the drug-injecting is also morally impermissible. Nevertheless, “Most opponents of physician-assisted suicide are content to allow a doctor to give what is in fact a lethal dose of morphine when nothing less than that will relieve the pain of the patient, or make it bearable (Thomson, 1999, P.508).” In fact, according to Thomson (1999), during oral argument in the Supreme Court, Walter Dellinger, who was the acting solicitor general arguing against physician assisted suicide said “We agree that state law may…not only allow withdrawal of medical treatment but also allow physicians to prescribe medication in sufficient doses to relieve pain even when the necessary dose will hasten death. So long as the physician’s intent is to relieve pain and not to cause death (Thomson, 1999, P.508).” This means that a doctor doing something with intent to cause the patient death is different from a doctor’s doing something foreseeing that his death will ensue (Thomson, 1999). To put this in perspective, going back to disconnecting and nonconnecting, there is no doubt that a doctor knows that if they disconnect or nonconnect a patient, they will inevitably die, yet these two practices are accepted by society, despite the doctor doing or not doing something with the intent of causing the patient’s death. That is what is called a double-standard (Thomson, 1999). As it was shown in previous paragraphs, the legality of all four cases of physician-assisted suicide lies heavily on the doctors themselves, and how morally permissible it is for them to perform it. It is clear that these arguments are nothing but complex, and even though they have been rebutted, there is another solution, which removes a variable from this whole equation; the physicians themselves. According to consultant radiologist Bob Bury (2002) “if society want euthanasia, fine. Let society draw up the framework that will prevent abuse form this new freedom” (P.848). Bury (2002) then emphasizes on having specific locations designed only to perform physician assisted suicide, and that way, the doctors’ morals, and their oath to preserve life is not being infringed. Theory According to Adler, Mueller and Laufer (2007), Strain theory tries to explain crime by stating that “the real problem, is created not by sudden social change but by a social structure that holds out all the same goals to all its members without giving them equal means to achieve them. This lack of integration between what the culture calls for and what it permits, can cause norms to break down because they no longer are effective guides to behavior” (P.103). This theory can be applied to the controversy of legalizing all of the cases of physician assisted suicide because even though it has been proven that there is no reason to make disconnecting and nonconnecting legal, but to illegalize drug-providing and drug-injecting, society’s structural boundaries like the Supreme Court’s arguments that are not consistent with their premises are exactly what prevents individual in all cases to achieve their wishes, which is to die a dignified death, within their control. Society needs physician-assisted suicide, but its structure prevents it, and therefore, it forces doctors to find loopholes and engage in deviant or even criminal behavior, like killing a patient with a high dose of morphine but having to lie about their intent. Methodology: Primary Data If I had to conduct research and collect data on my own, I would personally choose to do a case study. A case study is an intensive study about a person, a group of people or a unit, which is aimed to generalize over several units, in order to make a concrete conclusion about a topic (Adler, Mueller, Laufer, 2007). I would first track down family members of patients that constituted each of the four cases of physician-assisted suicide and interview them about how they saw their loved one suffer to death because they were not allowed to perform a physician-assisted suicide. Subsequently, I would track patients that are requesting physician-assisted suicide and record these cases to further strengthen my argument. Lastly, I would also analyze past legal cases and arguments involving this topic to establish a common denominator regarding the opposition’s arguments, to better establish a counter-argument. Findings and Conclusions After researching other sources, it has been established that Physician-assisted suicide is a rather complex and very controversial topic of discussion. Nevertheless, it has been established that the arguments from those who oppose physician assisted suicide are merely based on morality, and more often than not contradict each other with different cases. Moreover, it has also been established that if the main concern is having doctors performing physician-assisted suicide, then having specific locations designed to perform this task is a feasible solution. I think that placing restrictions on what can be done on someone despite their wishes is a serious infringement of liberty. I suggest that instead of focusing on the doctors intend to do or not to do, we should focus on the patient’s last desires, just like we should not be driven by the uncertainty of doctors killing or just letting nature take its course. References: Adler, F., Mueller, G. O., & Laufer, W. S. (2007). Criminology. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Bury, B. (2002). Doctors should not decide on medical and "existential" suffering (7341 ed., aaaaVol. 324). British Medical Journal. pp. 497-518 doi:25227940 Thomson, J. J. (1999). Physician Assisted Suicide: Two Moral Arguments (3rd ed., Vol. 109). The aaaaaUniversity Of Chicago Press. Pp. 848 doi:10.1086/233919