The Right to Die
The goal of this article is to go over some of the literature that will be used in the research on the right to die. The study's research questions are as follows: Is physician-assisted suicide moral? Is it permissible? Who determines when someone should die? To evaluate if physician-assisted suicide is moral, secular and religious perspectives must be harmonized through research in order to establish a common ground of conviction regarding its morality. The essay will look at three sources. I chose the three sources because they each have three distinct points of view, which aids in examining the various points of view. The first source supports religious views against physician-assisted suicide while the second source supports the constitutional (secular) view of the topic. The third source does not support any side; it only shows a mixture of the two views in the church, indicating how the division between the two opposing sides is destabilizing the church.
Right to Die
In the recent past, the advancement of science and technology has led to the development of medicine and medical practices; causing reduced deaths. Nowadays people can easily be healed from various illnesses. However, the use of medicine and other forms of treatment may sometimes cause prolonged pain. There are diseases that cannot be completely cured; but medicine can be used to prolong the patients' lives. Such prolonged lifespan may be accompanied with a lot of pain and suffering. To end such prolonged pain, scientists have come up with assisted suicide to help patients overcome their pain through 'good death'. The doctor-assisted suicide involves prescribing lethal drugs to patients suffering from terminal diseases. According to those who support the assisted suicide, this approach gives people the choice to end their lives when they experience slow, degenerative and painful deaths. They believe that the patients have a right to choose to die peacefully or live painfully for the rest of their lives. However, those who oppose this approach argue that the field of medicine and healthcare should look for better medicine to reduce people's pain until they die naturally. Therefore, this issue brings a moral question of whether people should have the power to choose whether to live or die when faced with a terminal illness; and whether euthanasia is moral or not. Various researchers and scholars have different opinions.
Physician Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia
Physician assisted suicide and euthanasia have not received the same attention and passion as the prolife movement that has long struggled against abortion; but according Kaveny (2011) argues that things are about to change. Kaveny is basing his arguments on a study carried out Gallup in May 2011 which showed that 45% of the population is now supporting physician assisted suicide as a morally acceptable practice, while 48% of them oppose it because they think it is morally wrong. Clearly, the two sides are sharply divided. In this regard, assisted suicide is now gaining a lot of support in the world.
The Religion vs Secular Perspective
According to Kaveny (2011), the question of whether euthanasia is moral or not has been associated with the debate on abortion. Catholic culture has long stood against abortion. Catholics and other Christians are prolife advocates who believe that an unborn child should be protected from a parent who wants to kill it without its conscience. However, euthanasia allows the patient to choose whether to die or not. In this regard, some people would argue that euthanasia is not a matter of justice because the person who uses it makes the decision. On the other hand, prolife advocates suggest that physician-assisted suicide is the beginning of an unjust process. They argue that physician-assisted suicide may evolve into a voluntary euthanasia in which the physician makes the decision to kill, and then evolves to involuntary euthanasia in which the patients may be killed without their will.
The Legal and Constitutional Perspective
Kaveny (2011) suggests that the prospect of facing painful death creates anxiety and fear among patients. People fear death. The thought of dying abandoned, painfully and alone makes them feel anxious. Furthermore, they do not want their families to be burdened with medical expenses. In this regard, such people would prefer the option of physician-assisted suicide. However, according to Kaveny these fears should not be overcome through the culture of death. Instead, pain and suffering should be reduced through a universal health care involving the latest techniques of pain control. There should be homecare for the elderly, and respite care should be made more accessible. Moreover, churches, mosques and synagogues should give hope to the sick through their faith and religious ministries.
The Debate and Resolution
Rubin (2010) argues that the issues of euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide evoke a lot of emotions; making them difficult to resolve. Rubin believes that the prohibition of assisted suicide is religiously motivated. The U.S. judicial system left the decision of legalizing physician assisted suicide to the states. So far, only three states have legalized the practice - Washington, Oregon and Montana. According to Rubin (2010), the constitutional stand against physician-assisted suicide is based on the western civilization culture against suicide which is religiously motivated. It has resulted from the Christian perspective of morality of higher purpose. However, this morality has been replaced by the modern morality of higher perspective which does not prohibit assisted suicide.
According to Rubin (2010) laws that support assisted suicide are derived from religion while those that prohibit the practice are secular in nature. Rubin supports the establishment clause which states that no state should favor the beliefs of one religion over those of other religions, unless the prohibition has a secular basis. Rubin (2010) believes that laws against suicide have no secular basis; the establishment clause provides a view on the right to die, which has a constitutional basis and directed to the real issue at hand.
Conflicting Views in the German Church
May (2003) provides a review of discussions about assisted suicide in Germany. These discussions have resulted from the legalization of euthanasia and assisted suicide in Belgium and Netherlands. These discussions present conflicting views about the morality of assisted suicide. According to the medical profession and some mainline church members, physician-assisted suicide should be based on end-of-life decisions. The German Supreme Court states that the known wishes of the patient should be used when deciding on patients' medications, but without such wishes the physician should make a decision based on commonly shared values. The Roman Catholic Church in Germany openly opposes euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide. These different views on physician-assisted suicide are likely to bring foundational disagreements in the Mainline German Christianity regarding the appropriate way of terminating human life.
Conclusion
After reviewing the literature, it is clear that the topic is becoming highly debatable. Various people provide different opinions regarding the morality of physician-assisted suicide. The point of divergence seems to be the religious versus secular perspectives on termination of human life. Kaveny (2011) supports the religious views which tend to oppose physician-assisted suicide for going against the morality of higher purpose. Rubin (2010) supports the constitutional perspective which gives people the right to make a decision about how to terminate their lives. May (2003) does not support any side, but explains how the topic has caused a sharp division in the church. Indeed, this topic still has a long debate before it becomes resolved. Future research should consider other ways of resolving this conflict of opinion to add to the existing secular and religious perspectives.
References
Kaveny, C. (2011). Dignity & the end of life: how not to talk suicide. Commonwealth. Retrieved from ic.galegroup.vanguard.idm.oclc.org.
May, A. T. (2003). Physician-Assisted Suicide, Euthanasia, and Christian Bioethics: Moral Controversy in Germany. Christian Bioethics: Non-Ecumenical Studies In Medical Morality, 9(2/3), 273-283.
Rubin, E. (2010). Assisted suicide, morality, and law: Why prohibiting assisted Sciences, Vanderbilt Law Review, 1330(1), 94-100.
