For over a decade, there has been great controversy around the world over the legality and ethics of euthanasia and suicide with medical treatment. While euthanasia and doctor-assisted suicide sound rational in situations, it is important to recognize that nature law is contrary to practice. It is important.
Assisted death is a model that requires voluntary active euthanasia and what the doctor, known as doctor-assisted suicide, has suggested (Zerwekh). The problem is the degree of conduct and intervention according to assisted death. Basically, physician-assisted suicide involves creating and making lethal drug present for the patient to use when they desire (Zerwekh). On the other hand, voluntary active euthanasia is facilitated by the physician’s active involvement in conducting the process but at the request of the patient, which most often consists of intravenous delivery of a substance that is known to be lethal to human’s body (Zerwekh).
According to several individuals, physician-assisted suicide happens to be much easier emotionally for the physician when compared to euthanasia. The reason behind the logic is that the physician does not have to be directly involved in the process (Zerwekh). On the other hand, in the case of non-physician-assisted death, those who are less involved in the process tend to have less hardship in general when it comes to admitting their role (Clark). Individuals who advocate for physician-assisted suicide claim that it carries the advantages of permitting the patient to decide on the period when they want to face their death and provide the patient with the chance to change their decision until the last moment when they are to face their death (Clark). According to my perception, this possibility does exist in the case associated with voluntary active euthanasia.
Furthermore, it may give the physician ample time to talk about the topic of motives and alternatives that the patient has for the last time. In the case of oral lethal drugs that one administers by themselves, even though they allow some freedom on time, there exist the possibility of experiencing errors (Clark). Additionally, the process needs to be completed when the patient is still in a stable condition to swallow and hold down the lethal substance of the drug to be metabolically absorbed into the body (Clark).
Even though the above-discussed process appears to be easy, there is the fear of risk increasing among patients with the usage of this means. As a result, some patient may react much faster than necessary to avoid undergoing the process (Field & Bernard). Meanwhile, euthanasia is associated with very minimal chances of mistakes and is the most appropriate method to use if the patient is too sick to administer the lethal drug by themselves or are not able to hold down the drug to allow it to get absorbed into the body for effectiveness (Field & Bernard). If patients get to establish that a physician has the ability to intervene, the option of assisted death stands a chance of getting postponed permanently.
In conclusion, the legality and ethics associated with euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide have caused great debate across the globe. While there are individuals who tend to explain of circumstances by which euthanasia can be conducted, it is important to understand that taking another person’s life whether voluntary or involuntary tend to be against ethics.
Clark, Nina. The politics of physician assisted suicide. Routledge, 2014.
Field, Marilyn J, and Bernard Lo. Conflict of Interest in Medical Research, Education, and Practice. Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 2009.
Zerwekh, Joyce V. Nursing Care at the End of Life: Palliative Care for Patients and Families. Philadelphia: F.A. Davis Co, 2006.