Physician+Assisted+Suicide+Ethicality

Home Health and Medicine

Physician assisted suicide is an extremely controversial topic worldwide that poses a question of whether people should be able to end their lives prematurely when terminally ill, and what measures need to be taken to ensure that it is a last resort. People who are in favor of the legalization of physician-assisted suicide (PAS) believe that if a person is in pain, does not have a will to live, and is already confirmed to die in 6 months or less, then they should have the option available to end the suffering before it happens naturally. Those in favor believe that a person autonomously should have the option over choices regarding their own bodies. Those who oppose legalization argue that it is not ethical, that legalizing PAS is ultimately normalizing the concept of suicide in society. Other existing arguments claim that if one wants to end their life, it may be because they are not receiving proper health care and therefore resort to this option. Many opinions exist over this controversial subject that is so relevant in today’s society, and while PAS is becoming legal within the U.S., articles from different perspectives offer insight into differing opinions on PAS.
 * Ethicality of Physician Assisted Suicide as a Societal Concept**



Carol-Ann Emmons presents a survey by physicians that expresses their opinions in participating in PAS; the physicians involved stated that the majority of PAS requests come from terminally ill seniors with no will to live. This article provides data, and claims that legalization would lead to more willingness to partake in the hastening of death.  It states that several factors have an association with a physician’s decision to help hasten a patient’s death, “ including region of practice, religion, and specialty” (Emmons). The studies showed that the majority of requests of these types (physician-assisted suicide/ euthanasia) are frequent to practitioners who have specialties in fields with likely elderly dying people- these requests are not at all rare especially in the states in which physician assisted suicide is legal. This article provides data, and claims that legalization would lead to more willingness to partake in the hastening of death. However, more access to palliative care would likely reduce the amount of people who want to end their lives due to feelings of depression, abandonment, loss of dignity, etc death
 * Physician POV**

There are countless examples of the United States government attempting to take control of people’s bodies- but not necessarily their well being. In 2010, a pregnant woman became lightheaded and fell down the stairs. She was then arrested and put in jail for attempting to kill the fetus (T. Amelia). Up until 2010, it was illegal for a pregnant woman to fall down the stairs in over 30 states- it still remains illegal in most. Here the well being of a fetus is more prioritized than a woman’s health. Although there have been cases of women “falling” down the stairs to intentionally harm their baby, enacting this law is not at all justified, for similar reasons that preventing abortion from being legalized is not justified. Although legal abortions would be performed in the first trimester-when the fetus is not developed and cannot exist separately from the mother- arguments are still made claiming that the fetus has potential, disregarding the fact that the potential of the mother- and the fact that when someone wishes to get an abortion, they are not mentally, financially, or willingly capable of supporting a child for 18+ years. Although government officials who are not at all informed enough on medical implications of abortions or PAS, they have the power and authority to make decisions for the masses. It is evident that the wellbeing of citizens is not the government’s priority in the mere fact that they prioritize an unborn fetus’ life more than alive victims of mass shootings, for abortion is illegal (in most states) and highly regulated, yet guns are not. moral The source of this circular reasoning comes from when the United States was founded on Christian moral "truths". Countless laws have been enacted in which their only purpose comes from abiding to the Christian bible. Even if it is not completely intentional for them to enact countless laws stemming from the bible, when the majority of the people in the government are white and christian and male, it is inevitable that their principles will outshine any differing ones. In many cases, this leads to utter detriment in terms of the wellbeing of individuals. Countless mothers having to sacrifice their lives against their will, change their livelihoods in order to care for an unborn baby that they cannot care for, were not ready for, did not want- when it could have been prevented. Countless babies born, starting difficult and underprivileged lives of hardship all because the government claimed to care for its well being- before it was even alive (and then at the moment of the baby’s birth the same institution loses all interest and concern for the baby). Countless people dead from mass shootings all because of an amendment which has not been modified since a time where there were slaves- not to mention they only counted as ⅗ of a person. Countless hopeless and suffering elderly, forced to live completely against their will by not having the choice to end their own lives before their painful terminal illness does. Physician-assisted suicide should be an attainable option for patients who are suffering from a terminal illness that has been dictated to give them 6 months or less to live, after submitting multiple oral and written requests for it confirming that it is a sure decision. Outdated laws and ethics should not be prolonging suffering and hopeless patients’ lives . An essay by Frederick White attempts to compare different polls and data about opinions on the moral permissibility of PAS. Two polls were involved in the essays claim, one about the permissibility of physician-assisted suicide and the other about the moral acceptability of it. In these polls, results show that a majority of the people somewhat or strongly agree that a person going through intolerable pain should have the choice to end their lives in a legal manner. However, White proceeds to claim that these results were biased due to the situation that the participators were presented with. “A conditional statement in and of itself does not constitute a logical argument. However, when the content of the antecedent is taken as a true premise and the inferential link between the antecedent and the consequent is taken in support of the consequent as a conclusion or judgment, an argument has been presented as a hypothetical syllogism” (251). The prompt in the polls was to consider the plight of a patient who has a terminal illness and is in pain and decide whether they should have the choice to end their life in this intolerable suffering. White claims that this hypothetical situation is presented in a manner that makes one sympathetic, and that physician assisted suicide would not always be requested for someone in serious physical pain, but mental anguish as well. Although many people voted indifferent or in favor of allowing people the option to end their own lives through PAS, White argues that the data from the polls do not conclude to people being in favor of it for they are not detailed enough. White then attempts to argue that the survey does not mention hospice or palliative care as options for treatment, however “A Study of Canadian Hospice Palliative Care Volunteers’ Attitudes Toward Physician-Assisted Suicide” shows that in Canada (where PAS is not legal), many palliative care volunteers state that although patients may be receiving primary care and attention, PAS should still be an option for those who are suffering from extreme illnesses. Suffering and hopeless human beings should not be forced to prolong their own life when they have no will to survive, and their surviving merely entails living in agony with the knowledge of their imminent death while acquiring more bills that their family will have to pay off. Not giving terminally ill patients the choice of physician assisted suicide not only strips them of their dignity but is not sustainable at all in terms of in hospital expenses and uses. The expenses of doctors, nurses, equipment, electricity, rooming, etc. can be considered wasted when it is given to someone that does not want it, though someone with a larger chance and desire to live may actually need the care. The fact that this something that the government enacts to make physicians enforce is not reasonable or just. Physicians are forced to spend so much time and effort on patients that do not want it because of a law, when they may professionally know from experience that the patient does not need any more treatment. Although miracles do happen, the livelihood of a human being should not be determined by these infinitesimal chances.
 * Autonomy of Body Argument**

Related Links Physician Assisted Suicide Inalienable Right Physician Assisted Suicide

Works Cited

Claxton Oldfeld, Stephen & Miller, Kathryn. “A Study of Canadian Hospice Palliative Care Volunteers’ Attitudes Toward Physician-Assisted Suicide.” American Journal of Hospice & Palliative Medicine, 2015. []. Web. Accessed 24 September 2017. Emmons, Carol-Anne. “ A National Survey of Physician-Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia in the United States.” The New England Journal of Medicine, 1998. [|http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199804233381706#t=article]. Web. Accessed 24 September 2017. Jaret, Peter. “Is Physician-Assisted Suicide Ethical?” Berkeley Wellness, 2016. []. Web. Accessed 21 September 2017. White, Frederick J. “Lessons from Recent Polls on Physician-Assisted Suicide.” National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly, 2017. Web. Accessed 21 September 2017. [] Kohn, Sally. “Whos Bodies Should Government Control?” The Atlantic 2015. Web. Accessed 10 November 2017. https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/10/california-death-with-dignity/410689/