Assisted Suicide a Very Controversial Subject
Assisted Suicide a Very Controversial Subject
Assisted Suicide a Very Controversial Subject
America is known as, “The land of the free,” but what are Americans actually free to control? Humans control a lot of different aspects of their individual lives, but not all of them. Do humans control their own deaths, should they? In the medical field there is an emerging development know as Physician Assisted Suicide or PAS. If a patient is suffering unbearably or is terminally ill with no hope of getting well should they have the option of ending their lives? PAS is defined, by Clarence H. Braddock III of The University of Washington, as “A practice in which the physician provides a patient with a lethal dose of medication, upon the patient’s request, which the patient intends to use to end his or her life.” Since the practice has come about there have been arguments supporting and opposing PAS, including ethical and moral arguments, legal arguments and medical arguments. By discussing some of the more important of these arguments in an opposing, supporting and religious interpretation one can have a better understanding and advocacy of PAS.
The first viewpoint to be discussed is from an opposing side. One of the arguments concerns decisions about care at the end of life that are typically made by physicians with some consultation with family members (End-of-life). Dick Sobsey Ph. D., University of Alberta feels that “People with illnesses and disabilities are having death decisions made for them and imposed on them.” PAS is a decision made by the patient, all the doctors assist with is the prescription. CBC News states “Vulnerable individuals may be coerced into assisted suicide to ease financial burden of caring for them.” A feeling that the seriously ill may not have the resources necessary for implementation of the choice to live is only one aspect. Another concern is that people with illnesses and disabilities are poorly informed about their conditions and future prospects; therefore, “The decision to engage in PAS cannot be made rationally,” according to Sobsey. Furthermore, he feels “Patients are given unclear or misleading information about their prognosis or how long they are expected to live because health care providers simply do not know or are wrong in their expectations.” One has to wonder if Mr. Sobsey has any faith in the medical field of the U.S. or even if he has a physician. Other medical arguments include the possibility of misdiagnosis, the potential availability of new treatments and the probability of incorrect prognosis. The American Medical Association has asserted “PAS is fundamentally incompatible with the physician’s role as healer and that it poses serious societal risks” (QTD in End-of-Life). CBC News states “Many medical professionals maintain it is never morally permissible for doctors to help kill a patient;” (QTD in Fight) furthermore, “Physician’s are barred from helping person’s to die because of the Hippocratic Oath,” which states “Doctors should not kill” (QTD in Lasagna). The Oath also says, “I will not administer poison to anyone where asked,” and “Be of benefit, or at least do no harm” (QTD in Lasagna). The next opposition is the concern that PAS will be linked to the practice of medicine which could harm the public’s image of the profession (Braddock). If the image of the medical field is at risk than Mr. Braddock and Mr. Sobsey should have a chat because Mr. Sobsey doesn’t think very highly of the medical field in the first place. The last concern stated is, “If assisted suicide is accepted, it may be permitted for even larger groups of persons, including the non-terminally ill, persons with disabilities, persons whose pain is emotional instead of physical”(QTD in End-of-Life). The opposing viewpoints are very strong in their case, but have no backbone in their arguments. The different authors contradict each other and leave room for misunderstanding. All are lacking the patient’s opinion and the patient should be of the utmost importance in the PAS decision.
Braddock in “Physician Assisted Suicide” states “A rational choice for people who chose to die or escape unbearable pain would be PAS.” One major argument for those who support PAS is respect for autonomy. This includes “The right of competent patients to choose for themselves the course of their lives, they should also have the right to determine the course of their own dying as much as possible” (QTD in End-of-Life). Ethical and moral arguments include “The principle of self-determination to control the time, place and nature of one’s death, placing quality at the end of life above the sanctity of life” (QTD in End-of-Life). The option should be available for the patient to decide for themselves