Physician-Assisted Suicide: An Analysis
Physician-assisted suicide (PAD), refers to the death of a patient helped by physicians and doctors through the administration of life-terminating medication (Menzel, "Steinbock, 2013). The Physician-Assisted suicide is similar to Euthanasia but differs in the sense that in the former, the patient receives advice about how to terminate his own life and the means as well as medication from the physician and performs the act himself. In the latter, the physician performs the act on behalf of the patient (De Lima et al., 2017).
There are many arguments for and against Physician-Assisted suicide to date. Some people argue that it amounts to murder-suicide, which is illegal, while others believe that it is amongst the best choice in some instances. This essay will analyze the appropriateness of the act, in terminally ill patients who are close to death and fighting for their lives is no longer an option.
The Misuse of Physician-Assisted Suicide
Just like any other policy, Physician-assisted suicide is bound to be misused if it becomes highly prevalent and legalized without restrictions in societies. It is a fact that there are very many suicidal persons in the world today. According to the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention, suicide is the 10th leading cause of death in the United States, with more than 44,000 people killing themselves each year (Jashinsky et al., 2014). A higher number, 25 times the actual suicide rates attempt but survive, opening them up to possible police interference and potential jail times. Therefore, if it were possible, such people would opt to get prescriptions from doctors to help them end their lives. Also, ethical slippery is a significant source of concern. In as much as the current practice is very strict and particular about the people who deserve to get the help, there is the possibility that with increased use, the qualifications may change and shift to more illnesses and gradually become the most sought method of ending lives (Vaughn, 2015).
The Legal Status of Physician-Assisted Suicide
There are currently many rules and regulations meant to prevent such occurrences. Currently, only five states have legalized PAD. These are California, Washington, Vermont, Oregon and Montana (De Lima et al., 2017). In the five states, licensed medical doctors are supposed to give the prescriptions and must ascertain the need for the patients to be granted those wishes. The critical requirement is ensuring the patient to be terminally ill to the extent that full recovery is impossible. With only five states allowing the practice, it means that the majorities of the states are against the act and prohibits it in their various institutions.
The Perspective of Terminally Ill Patients
Worth noting is the fact that in as much as the states which refuse to allow the practice do it with the aim of helping the patients and reducing overall deaths, the terminally ill patients, willing to end their suffering, are the ones who suffer. Diseases such as cancer in the last stage, diabetes, ALS and other conditions where the doctors can no longer provide treatment (De Lima et al., 2017). Most of these illnesses are not only immensely painful but are a source of great suffering to the patients. A condition such as cancer in the last stages cannot be treated and the subjection to continuous chemotherapy, treatment and injections drastically affect the patients. Such patients are sure that in as much as the medications may help them to a small extent, death is inevitable. Instead of living in continued pain and suffering, such patients should be allowed to choose the option which will help them escape the suffering as early as possible. Since most of the illnesses do not affect the mental condition of the patients initially, they are sound enough to make the choices, and the doctors should respect that.
The Impact on Patients and Their Families
Also, a terminal illness does not affect the patient alone but also the people around such patient (Menzel, "Steinbock, 2013). In the final stages of the diseases, most of the patients become entirely dependent on the people around them as they cannot perform the simplest of tasks. A condition such as ALS makes the patient lose their motor functions meaning that they cannot move, walk and in some cases even talk. Most of these people are persons who had earlier led very healthy lives and so adjusting is very difficult. The patients also undergo instances of respiratory failure and swallowing difficulty which means that they have to be fed through tubes (Sareen et al., 2013). The family members are also charged with the responsibility of cleaning up the patients since in such a case their bowel movements are also greatly compromised (Sareen et al., 2013). The doctors know how these conditions progress and notify the patients and their families well in advance to ensure that they are fully prepared. In such a case, denying the patients of the PAD's is very unfortunate since they have to live lives that they do not want. Some of the patients feel that their dignity is significantly compromised in such a case, as they do not wish to stress their families as they do. Physicians have an obligation to alleviate pain and suffering and also ensure that the dignity of their patients is promoted and with the granting such patients the wish for a PAD before they become entirely dependent on others, they will have achieved their objective.
Autonomy and the Right to Choose
Finally, it is a law that physicians cannot force their patients to keep taking some treatments if they do not want to and also if they want to forego life-sustaining medications and treatments (Vaughn, 2015). Terminally ill patients with conditions such as cancer take medications which are very strong. Treatments such as chemotherapy lead to hair loss, weakness, weight loss, vomiting and general body weakness. Regardless of the fact that the doctors know that it is impossible to recover from the illnesses, particularly in the last stages, they still give the treatment to enable the patients to live more comfortably, which in most cases does not even happen. Some patients choose to forego the treatment altogether and in such a case should be granted their wishes if they would prefer to undertake a PAD. The doctors can be able to tell which conditions one cannot recover from and therefore should consider the option.
References
De Lima, L., Woodruff, R., Pettus, K., Downing, J., Buitrago, R., Munyoro, E., ... " Radbruch, L. (2017). International association for hospice and palliative care position statement: Euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide. Journal of palliative medicine, 20(1), 8-14.
Jashinsky, J., Burton, S. H., Hanson, C. L., West, J., Giraud-Carrier, C., Barnes, M. D., " Argyle, T. (2014). Tracking suicide risk factors through Twitter in the US. Crisis: The Journal of Crisis Intervention and Suicide Prevention, 35(1), 51.
Menzel, P. T., " Steinbock, B. (2013). Advance Directives, Dementia, and Physician‐Assisted Death. The Journal of Law, Medicine " Ethics, 41(2), 484-500.
Sareen, D., O’Rourke, J. G., Meera, P., Muhammad, A. K. M. G., Grant, S., Simpkinson, M., ... " Gendron, T. (2013). Targeting RNA foci in iPSC-derived motor neurons from ALS patients with a C9ORF72 repeat expansion. Science translational medicine, 5(208), 208ra149-208ra149.
Vaughn, L. (2015). Doing ethics: Moral reasoning and contemporary issues. WW Norton " Company.
