- Joined
- Oct 21, 2009
- Messages
- 856
- Reaction score
- 2
EDIT: I think both "Yes" answers can get a little confusing. The first yes is to allow PAS with little to no regulation (no psych evalution, etc only requirement is to be terminally ill) the second yes is with strict regulation (psych test, terminally ill, last resort, etc).
So, I had to write a small essay on an ethical dilemma. I chose to write about PAS and it got me thinking because of all the points each side makes. Here is the essay I wrote. After reading it, give me some feedback on what your guys' thoughts are on the issue.
Sorry mods if this topic isn't allowed to be discussed.
So, I had to write a small essay on an ethical dilemma. I chose to write about PAS and it got me thinking because of all the points each side makes. Here is the essay I wrote. After reading it, give me some feedback on what your guys' thoughts are on the issue.
Physician Assisted Suicide: is it the Right of a Patient to Choose When to Die?
A young doctor is assigned to treat a type of patient he has never encountered. He's new to the oncology department of a hospital. What he doesn't realize is that the patient he has been assigned to is a terminally ill patient and his only job is to do his best to make their death as painless and as human as possible. Weeks go by and what seemed like treating a patient until they passed has turned into a nightmare not only for the young doctor, but also the patient's family and most of all, the patient. New medical developments now allow physicians to administer deadly doses of medication to patients, allowing them to pass away in a faster and less painful way. The patient who has been sick for weeks and in terrible pains, begs the young doctor to let him go. The young doctor now faces an ethical dilemma; allow the patient to die by natural causes and continue treating him until he does so or essentially "kill" (which is a common misconception, often confused with euthanasia, because doctors only provide patients with the "medical means to perform the act." (Journal of Law & Medical Ethics)) the patient and prevent them from anymore suffering.
Everyday there are patients who can no longer be saved by the medical limitations there currently are. No one really knows when physician assisted suicide began because it' been illegal throughout history. Before medicine got to the place it is now, all patients could do was wait to pass away or hope for a miracle which rarely came, but now Physicians can shorten and "alleviate" the painful manner in which a lot of patients die. The questions that arise with these new medical procedures are whether physicians should have the power to "control" death and whether should a physician should stand in the sidelines and allow patients to suffer and deprive them of their "right" over their own life. These 2 questions divide the American population into whether they believe it is morally acceptable the concept of physician assisted suicide. According to a poll conducted in 2007 by the Gallup Organization, "49% of Americans say doctor-assisted suicide is morally acceptable, while 44% say it is morally wrong."
The side who debates whether a human should have control over the life of another are those who feel corruption could arise with this practice. Quite understandable, as the authors of MedScape in their article The Continuing Challenge of Assisted Death: Ethical Arguments for and Against Assisted Death, state;
Some authors fear that, should assisted suicide and/or active euthanasia become legalized; the practice will expand from patients with life-threatening illnesses who are capable of making free and informed decisions to vulnerable groups of patients who do not freely choose or who are incapable of choosing or refusing aid in dying. For example, there may be patients who will feel coerced into requesting death by families or communities who cannot or do not want to care for them.Of course, with those fears, the side which opposes physician assisted suicides has grounds to stand on. Among people who are against PAS are religious people, people with secular arguments and surprisingly physicians themselves. According to a poll conducted by BMC Medical Ethic, "39% were in favor of a change to the law to allow assisted suicide, 49% opposed a change and 12% neither agreed nor disagreed." With such a high population of medical physicians opposing a law to allow PAS there must be something wrong.
Those who support PAS take a different route. As stated in the Journal of Law & Ethics, "physicians can already alter the rate of which a patient dies by controlling the medical treatment." So this begs the questions, if doctors can cease the treat a patient and the patient will die, why not provide them with the "medical means" to do sooner and quicker and less painfully? MedScape recaps statements by medical workers, "Some clinicians describe specific cases in which extreme suffering led them to assist patients to die; motivated to ‘shepherd' patients through the entire dying process, these clinicians concluded that assisted death was the most beneficent approach available under the circumstances." Under pressure and no available treatments they truly believed that helping a patient die would be the best treatment seeing as being alive only caused harm themselves and to everyone around the patient.
Oregon is currently the only state in the United States and the first jurisdiction in the world to have passed a law enabling physicians to assist terminally ill patients commit suicide; this new legislation is called the "Oregon: The Death with Dignity Act" (Ziegler). The process for administering deadly doses of medication to a patient have to follow strict guidelines which take at least 15 days and approval from all parties involved, whether it be the patient, the physician or the pharmacist, but a psychological assessment is not preformed. However, euthanasia still remains illegal and constitutes homicide if preformed (Ziegler).
Both arguments make great points which create, well an ethical dilemma that cannot be easily resolved. On one side, those who oppose PAS, base their argument on the "Norms of Justice" as well as the "Norm of Individual Rights" as author Gerald F. Cavanagh puts it. They believe that those who are taking the PAS route are losing their focus, especially doctors, which is to provide fair and equal treatment to every and all patients. However small the possibility of the patient to recover and survive, one mustn't waste an opportunity and cut a patient's life short. Also, it destroys the sanctity of the life and death process. It deprives an already weak patient of their rights and sometimes a patient might become cornered into committing suicide. All these faults must be answered and prevented. Justice for the individual's right to get the best treatment possible shouldn't be replaced with the easy way out is what those oppose PAS believe.
On the other hand, those who favor PAS also use the "Norm of Individual Rights" to support their claim. They believe that those who are terminally ill should be able to choose whether they've given up and no longer want to fight or continue fighting until the very end, it's a moral right and should become a legal right. They also argue with the "Norm of Utilitarianism" which states that allowing PAS is not only benefiting the patient, who is dying and will most likely die, but also those around them, relieving everyone of physical and emotional pain, "an action is right if it produces the greatest utility, ‘the greatest good for the greatest number'" (Cavanagh 236). The tie between the "Norm of Utilitarianism" and the "Norm of Individual Rights" is made when PAS can only be preformed (under legal terms like that of Oregon) with the patients written or oral consent.
All arguments presented by both parties are legit and understandable. If a patient chooses to give up the fight and looses their will to continue fighting, there is not much more a physician can do without help from the patient. A patient can refuse treatments whenever he chooses to as he is not legally obligated to continue treatments. Allowing patients to self-administer deadly doses of medication to end their life should be a legal right as it's depriving a patient control over their life. However, precautionary steps should be implemented into the laws to prevent abuse on behalf of patient, the patient's family and all other parties involved. Oregon has a law that allows PAS, but it doesn't require a psychological assessment which can be potentially dangerous as patients can be pressured into committing suicide when they don't want to. The only way to find out whether a patient truly wants to commit suicide by their own free will is if a psychological assessment is preformed. What's surprising in all of this is that according to the poll conducted by Gallup Poll News Service more people were "okay" with euthanasia (which is a physician directly administering the medication to the patient) and the death penalty, both of which take the life a person.
References:
Caroll, Joseph. "Decided Over Moral Acceptability of Doctor-Assisted Suicide; But, Majority Still Support Doctors Legally Helping Terminally Ill Patients Die."Gallup Poll News Service(2007). Academic One File. Web. 01 Mar. 2010.
Cavanagh, Gerald F. "Making Ethical Decision." Writing and Reading Across the Curriculum. Ed. Laurence Hehrens and Leonard J. Rosen. New York; Pearson Longman. 2008.
235-237. Print.
Lee, William, Annabel Price, and Mathew Hotopf. "Survey of Doctor's Opinions of the Legalization of Physician Assisted Suicude." BMC Medical Ethics (2009). Academic One File. Web. 01 Mar. 2010.
"The Continuing Challenge of Assisted Death: Ethical Arguments for and Against Assisted Death."Medscape: Medical News, Full-text Journal Articles & More. Web. 01 Mar. 2010. <http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/468566_4>.
Ziegler, Stephen J. "Collaborated Death: an Exploration of the Swiss Model of Assisted Death for Its Potential to Enhance Oversight and Demedicalize the Dying Process." Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics (2009). Academic One File. Web. March & April 2010.
Sorry mods if this topic isn't allowed to be discussed.
Last edited:
