Assisted Death Essay Example

is physician-assisted death (PAS) which entails a doctor's predetermined action to deliberately avail to a person the know-how and the procedure of committing suicide through either provision of counsel and or lethal prescriptions.

Secondly is euthanasia where a doctor provides the means of death usually via lethal medication. However, medical practitioners are only justified to recommend these fatal prescriptions within countries in which such an exercise is legal patient’s preferences or the prognosis for the disease notwithstanding.

The two medical procedures; PAS and Euthanasia are more often than not confused.

The patient takes the lethal prescription by themselves when it comes to death facilitated by the physician. In assisted death, there could be several forms under which it is categorized. This includes active and passive assisted death, voluntary and involuntary assisted death, indirectly assisted death and assisted suicide.

Cauthen, (2015, p.65) says that active and passive assisted death is where the practitioner willingly occasions the patients demise. Here, the healthcare practitioners indirectly kill the patient life by simply allowing them die. This could be seen as immoral since albeit the physician does not kill directly, they definitely know that as a result of their malpractice life will be lost.

Facilitated death could be conducted actively when a patient is treatment to an assortment of the lethal prescription which ends their life. Moreover, it could be done passively is by the removal of the correct prescriptions or just leaving them to the dead. (Cauthen 2015, p.12). This could be done by denying the proper patient treatment. Putting off a life supporting gadget that maintains and sustains the patient’s heartbeat, so that they lose their life to the terminal disease: overlooking a

corrective measure e.g. withholding a surgical procedure that would have sustained the patient albeit for a short time (Berg 2012, p.34). Traditionally, passive assisted death deemed more ethical compared to directly-facilitated- death. Even then, to some, active assisted death is more ethically palatable. According to Kasher, (2009, p.33), voluntary assisted death happens in response to the wish of the dying individual.

Conversely the involuntary assisted death happens when the person is comatose or exposed as it were e.g. an infant or a patient with no proper judgment capacity, to take an informed decision as to whether to live or die, and making sure that a qualified person takes the procedure. It also would include the case where a minor who is mentally and emotionally sober to take the decision but is not considered in the constitution as old enough to make such a decision, so someone else must take it on their behalf.

Non-voluntary assisted death also includes cases where the person is a minor who is rationally and candidly sober to take the choice but is not considered in the constitution as mature enough to settle on such a choice, so another person must take it for their sake. Involuntary assisted death happens when the dying individual chooses to live, and their life is ended at any rate (Kasher 2009, p.23). This is considered as murder, yet it is conceivable to envision situations where the executing would directly or indirectly benefit the person who dies.
Indirect assisted death, on the other hand, means providing a treatment routine that has the reaction of speeding up the patient's death. Since the cardinal aim is not to take life, this

is seen by a few people as ethically acceptable, taking the stand along these lines is formally called the instructing of double effect Indirect Assisted Death. This involves administering painkillers that have the effect of expediting one's death. Owing to the fact that the intention is not to kill this is considered morally palatable albeit not by everyone. Consequently, assisted suicide generally alludes to occurrences where the dying individual needs assistance to take away their lives and make a recommendation to that impact. It might be as basic as getting possibly deadly medications for the debilitated individual and putting them at arm's length. (Ziegler 2014, p.66).

Healthcare practitioners have given diverse reasons as to why they opt to practice, and patients go for assisted death. According to Meyers & Bosshard, (2008, p.55), physicians opt to it since some patients might be suffering from a tremendously painful terminal illness which prompts them to prefer dying to living. Next on the list is when patients apprehend being a burden to their families thus dying becomes the best option to rule out such a possibility. Thirdly, some patients may have neurological infections prompting them to consider assisted death. Geographical immobility may also provoke assisted death intentions. Lastly but to a less extent, patients may prefer dying due to consistent lack of sleep; Insomnia.

Patients on the other hand apparently take on assisted death mostly because their illness limits their avenues of enjoying life, secondly some disease may reduce efficiency on the part of patients due to eroded concentration. Lastly, a substantial number of patients may have lost hope and or interest in life.

The practice has both advantages and disadvantages altogether.

Some groups and organizations have been so much against assisted death, some being governmental and others non-governmental as well as religious groups. They have spearheaded campaigns against aided death across the globe. They do this following various misgivings of the exercise (Robinson & Wise 2013, p.46).

To begin with, assisted death infringes on the sanctity of life; life has divine respect and reverence attached to it. Additionally, people may condone irresponsible suicides by non-critical patients. It may violate the Hippocratic Oath by doctors. This is an oath that states the obligations and proper conduct of physicians. Fourth, religions have it that only God could take life; they, therefore, castigate assisted death. Finally, insurance companies may pressure doctors to terminate the lives of their clients to meet their selfish motives should assisted death be legitimized.

It is practiced in part or whole in various countries within the confines of laid out regulations that include Canada, Germany, Netherlands, and Uruguay. These are some of the countries that are well-known for practicing assisted death for quite some time.

Assisted death is dealt with as a criminal offense in Canada until 1972, after which it was scrapped off the Criminal Code. Doctor aided suicide has been then legitimized in Quebec after the establishment of the end of life care law in 2014. It was pronounced lawfully acceptable in the country after the Supreme Court’s ruling over the Carter v Canada (AG), case of February 6, 2015. (Stone 2008, p.182)

In Germany, termination of somebody’s life with respect to his demands is more often than not illegal under the German criminal code (Stone 2008, p.176). Assisting death by, for example, administering poison or weaponry

is legally acceptable. Since suicide Percy is legitimate, help or inspiration is not deserving of the regular lawful strategies involving complicity and incitement. However, there can be dire legal actions on a few instances.

In the Netherlands, assisted suicide is legitimate under some indistinguishable terms from aided demise. Doctor aided suicide was supported under the Act of 2001 which highlights the particular methodology and necessities required for arrangement of such helped death in Netherlands is in accordance with a medicinal model which requires that lone specialists of critically sick patients to be permitted to agree to a request for aided death. The Netherlands take patients well above the age of 12 legible subscribers to assisted suicide procedure if need be.

In Uruguay, the judges are mandated to overlook punishment of a person who previously lived honorably where he undertakes a homicide on compassion grounds, necessitated by incessant requests of the dying patient.

Other countries that support the practice are Switzerland, Japan, and some states in the U.S.A.

According to Ziegler and Bosshard, (2007, p.265), regard for autonomy may be neglected as an ethical principle simply because it is so imbued in our day by day occupations and therefore we underestimate it. In any case, those whose freedom and self-determination are slighted in nations everywhere throughout the world can confirm its significance. It is thus not astounding that autonomy and decision to end-of-life treatment are just debatable in democratic and open societies (Ziegler & Bosshard 2007, p.52).

Another ethical principle supporting physician-assisted death is empathy for our kindred nationals (Meyers & Bosshard 2008, p.136). Albeit contemporary palliative drug is equipped for mitigating the most enduring towards the end of life, it

can't prevent all of it. A few patients will keep on experiencing intolerable physical indications or mental distress in spite of the best that palliative care can offer. This distress is pointless since it can be anticipated by permitting patients the choice of medical aid in dying.

Compelling patients to experience superfluous suffering is not sympathetic but rather pitiless (Meyers & Bosshard 2008, p.120). The individuals who advocate for the legal and ethical choice of medical aid in dying have been very reliable in calling upon these two principles, autonomy, and empathy, in backing up their arguments.

If a patient has made an intentional solicitation for medical aid in dying, having been thoroughly educated of his anticipation and of the greater part of the choices accessible for end-of-life consideration, then a doctor's ability to conform to that solicitation can't compromise the patient's autonomy. Murder substitutes the will of the culprit for that of the casualty. Medical aid in death regards the freedom of the patient.

According to Meyers and Boss hard, 2008, the contemplation of assisted death is based on emotions on the side of the patient and the next of kin. When it comes to patients, the pangs of depression would push them to consider assisted death as the only way out of it.

This would mean that should necessary measures be taken e.g. applications of antidepressants (Lithium salts), this emotive medical malpractice would be kept at a bay.

Family and friends tend to harbor empathy towards the patient and seek to fasten their death but internally they feel some vicious remorse as it were; and therefore, they accept the procedure only by default.

Lastly, wherever one is in their

life, they remain human and still have the dignity of the humanity. Infants might be helpless but still are entitled to some dignity by the virtue of them being human. The physically handicapped having scars, amputated limbs or mental illness — still reserve the right to human dignity. This would mean that nothing takes away one’s human dignity and as such, any law or program that gives a leeway to any form of procedure that deprives one of such dignity is therefore unwelcome and heinous towards the humanity.

There is hence no relationship between medical aid in dying and instances of unjustified manslaughter. In light of it, there is no moral case of evidence against a law which would furnish dying patients with this choice.

As such, the move by the patient towards euthanasia could not be well-thought-out after all since they probably could be resorting to the practice in response to depression. In addition, the practice violates the human dignity and is counteractive to the application of the rule of thumb in as much as the patients’ survival is concerned. Furthermore, there is an extremely solid ethical case for it.

It is my opinion that permission to subscribe to advance demands for medical assistance in dying to be allowed any time after a patient is diagnosed with the condition that is sensibly likely to occasion incompetence, or after a diagnosis of irremediable disease but before the suffering becomes unbearable. Patients with psychiatric problems should not be allowed to make advance requests for assisted death.

References

1. Berg, L. H. (2012). Assisted Death and Physician-assisted Suicide Among Patients with Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis in the Netherlands. New England Journal of Medicine,
   

346(21), 1638-1644. Retrieved on September 13, 2016
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMsa012739#t=articleTop