Do Patients Have a Right To Die via Physician-assisted Suicide? Essay Example

sound mind when making such a suggestion of life threatening decision (Weir 35). Several countries and states have not been able to come to a conclusive decision on it. While several states claim that any form of suicide is illegal, other countries such as Germany claim that assisted suicide is legal as every person has the right to end life (Breitbart 331).

Concerning the issue whether patients have the right to die with the help of the physician, many arguments have been expressed. In the past, it was difficult for one to act, but today, Physician assisted suicide has been legalized. For example, in the United States, three states have legalized its performance. They include the States of Oregon, Montana and Washington. Oregon was the first state to legalize physician-assisted suicide through a general election in 1994 (Behuniak & Svenson 23). The Act, commonly referred to as the Death with Dignity Act, but with strict conditions. The state of Washington passed an act that was similar to that of Oregon legalizing physician-assisted suicide.

Since every person is the autonomy of their life, therefore, it should be extended to persons suffering from illness and therefore, should control the manner and the timing of death they wish to face (Hawkins, 69). Every person has the choice to live a quality life and avoid any pain and suffering. Thus, patients should be allowed to face death with dignity without the need to face any distress and that this autonomy must not be taken away from them. Physician-assisted suicide, others argue that the holiness of life is intensely reduced when an individual is diagnosed with a terminal illness (Kopelman & Allen

258) because such a life is featured by endless visits by family members and friends to the hospital and long hours of treatment. The life of the patient will always be a bedridden life with sympathies from family and friends. This pain and anguish, not worth going through while the end of it is certain, death.

Applying dignity in death, Terminal illness has the tendency of reducing able persons from being strong and respected persons to weak, suffering individuals who depend on others for personal hygiene, food, and other dehumanizing aspects of life. Patients also suffer from mental deterioration, hearing capabilities, mobility, and declining vision. This deteriorating state of life has to be observed by family and friend. When the patient eventually passes on, the only memories left are the sorry state of their adored one who died a sorry death. Supporters of physician-assisted suicide to affirm that a person who had a dignified life should not be allowed to die in a sorry state as such.

In addition, according to Birnbacher & Dahl (64), terminally ill patients are subject to depressions as nearly a third of all terminally ill patients suffer despair with other emotionally related problems such as stress. Therefore, these patients are known to opt to self-suicides which are carried out usually in a crude and disturbing way. To avoid such undignified style of death, patients to die with the assist from a physician is accepted.

It has been argued that the benefits of assisted killing are more than the cost involved. The benefits received from assisted suicide include a version of immense suffering and pain, a dignified death, and able to control the timing

and manner of death. The patient will manage the final days of their life. Moreover, the economics of treating terminally ill patient is normally high and the problem is that the patient will finally die, this is not economical, and other means of saving costs with dignity conserved may be well-thought-out (Breitbart 115).On the other hand, the only cost involved in ending a terminally ill patient’s life is greatly the feeling of guilt.

In contrast to the above argument, there are others who say that patients are not supposed to die by the help of the physicians; the following reasons express their sentiments. First is that physician-assisted suicide risks the marginalized and those weak in the society. Where it has been allowed, safeguards affirming to minimize this risk have proved to be insufficient and have regularly been removed over time. People who deserve assistance from the society are the one instead offered accelerated death.

The Second argument against it being used is that physician-assisted suicide changes the manner in which medicine is practiced. It spoils the profession of medicine by allowing the tools of curing to be used as methods for killing. By the same mark, physician-assisted killing threatens to alter the doctor–patient relationship primarily because it lessens patients’ trust of doctors. Moreover, the option of physician-assisted suicide would offer awkward incentives for insurance providers and the public sponsoring health care. Another reason against it is that it harms the entire culture. The temptation to view the disabled and elderly family members as problems will increase; the disabled will adopt this attitude and see themselves as burdens. Physician-assisted killing, therefore, is said to undermine the social solidarity

and true compassion of the society.

The last of their contrast to assisted killing is from the Hippocratic Oath used by the physicians as a code of ethics at work. Attributed to Hippocrates, the oath provides in part: “I will follow that process of treatment, which, according to my capability and judgment, I consider for the value of my patients, and abstain from whatever is harmful and mischievous. I will give no deadly treatment to anyone if asked, nor suggest any such direction”. For those physicians assisting in the killing are said to go against their swearing oath, hence not accepted for patients to die from the physician assisting suicide.

Conclusion

While there are many arguments for and against patients dying when assisted by the physician, the answer to the question of whether it is right or wrong remains unclear. There are many ethical reasons that support and oppose any physician-assisted suicides. Some of these ethical reasons include as discussed above cost analysis, proper legislation, liberty interest, and dignity in death. Additionally, courts have not expressly decided that it is illegal simply providing a guideline on the matter. In conclusion, accepting Physician-assisted suicide will go far in maintaining the dignity of the patient. Terminally ill patients encounter with a huge predicament in how they will live their last days. While some are enthusiastic in brave nature and have slow death, others wish for less painful and faster methods. Physicians should, therefore, assist such people to end their lives by giving life-ending medication to these terminally ill patients.

Works cited

1. Behuniak, S. M., & Svenson, A. Physician-assisted suicide: the anatomy of a constitutional law issue. New York: Rowman & Littlefield,
   

(2003)