Running head: AN ARGUMENT AGAINST PHYSICIAN-ASSISTED SUICIDE (PAS) 1
PHYSICIAN-ASSISTED SUICIDE (PAS) 6
An Argument against Physician-Assisted Suicide (PAS)
An Argument against Physician-Assisted Suicide (PAS)
The right of a terminally ill person to get assisted-suicide remains contentious, with assisted-suicide drawing diverse opinions across various States. Proponents argue on the basis that it is a right for human beings while the opponents argue on ethical reasons and religious perspectives. If one feels that there is no quality of life left, is it legal to end life at that point? This is a controversial question that has not been settled by many across the United States because of the moral aspect attached to it. I think that the life of a person should remain sacred and no one has the right to end except the creator, thus, in this discussion, I will argue against physician-assisted suicide and should not be legalized. Also, I will empty my arguments about why I feel this act should not be legalized by presenting research-based arguments to support this claim. As well, I will discuss opposing arguments accompanied by examples. Additionally, I will react and invalidate the counter-contention dependent on my research carried to show why I feel that my thesis is right.
Both the patient and the physician are involved in facilitating the act of PAS since the patient out of goodwill accepts to take lethal medicines that will result in death. In 1997, the state of Oregon became the first state globally to legalize PAS under the authorization of Doctor Jack Kevorkian who created the procedure. Doctor Jack Kevorkian introduced PAS intending to remove the suffering and pain of the chronically ill patient by killing them mercifully. At some point, some patients requested PAS after feeling their life is no longer bearable. I feel PAS does not value life as a gift from God, and terminating one’s life through PAS is unacceptable and should never at one point become legal.
There exist a vast difference when a terminally ill person dies naturally, and when any form of death assistance comes into play. Various researches provide immense evidence showing how those requesting for the PAS are ambivalent about it. As indicated by Emanuel et al (2016), “once PAS is ratified legal, it is anticipated that patients will undergo a period of subtle stress when adapting bearing in mind their parents and friends are suffering due to heavy medical bills that continue to count.” The group that goes for the PAS believes that, once they die, some stress-related issues will be alleviated.
Many reasons make people choose PAS despite them being hesitant about it. Other than these reasons, Yang & Curlin (2016) states “there exist many effective killing methods available other than involving a physician in PAS services, plus, looking for the doctor’s help must, subsequently, be a hidden “weep for help” and a sign that the patient at some level wants to be talked out of self-killing.” In some cases, the patient’s request for PAS does not mean he/she wants to die, but its due to other underlying issues such as financial and psychological problems pushing the patient to commit the act to get positive solutions.
Currently, there is a great advancement in healthcare facilities that modern technological tools are used in different ways to alleviate pain in terminally ill patients. For what reason should suicide be a choice so as to keep away from pain, in the event that it can be controlled? For what reason supported by proponents of PAS, the act should not be deemed as an alternative to manage pain and a treatment option. “Pain can be controlled and ethically acceptable approaches must be complied with when managing pain because pain management could be perhaps one of the significant methods in end-of-life care” (O’Rourke, O’Rourke & Hudson, 2017). When a terminally ill patient is experiencing extreme pain, he/she should be assigned a physician who should expertly contain the situation. Ending a life is not an excellent option to go for when there are better alternatives available to use to manage pain.
The principles of medicine according to Sulmasy & Mueller (2018) seek to fight for the moral and ethical rights of human beings that PAS legalization is against. Hippocratic Oath does not give physicians mandate to prescribe any lethal drug to on request or advice as may endanger the life of a person. The life of a patient must be protected by medical practitioners. On the side of this view, specialists are considered to treat a patient and legalizing the end of their lives will be a break of their obligation and duty. One rule of morals, as I would like to think, to consider when reacting to a patient’s request for helped suicide is the principle of self-governance, which is simply the capacity to choose. The ethical principle of beneficence is the extension of the principle of autonomy since an individual who has control over life chooses what is right and what gives life meaning (Sulmasy & Mueller, 2018). It is the mandate of medical practitioners to understand how to handle assisted-suicide requests from patients.
Another argument against assisted-suicide depends on the reason that our society would begin down a “slippery slope” of manhandling the privilege to euthanize patients (Kussmaul, 2017). Many individuals fear that once the killing is accepted for the critically ill, it will turn out to be broadly practiced and in the end lead to the use of habitual killing. In extraordinary cases, some even accept that doctors will euthanize those that can’t bear the cost of clinical coverage just because it’s too genuinely and monetarily depleting. With the potential for a presented danger of hurting patients through involuntary killing, Dworkin’s theory of paternalism would not allow the legalization of euthanasia. At last, by not supporting assisted-suicide, individuals are thus protected to their benefit from the potential maltreatment of euthanizing patients involuntarily. The possibility of society heading down a slippery slope if assisted-suicide somehow managed to be legalized is impossible.
Concerning this issue, the legalization of assisted-suicide receives immense support from its proponents. Dying with dignity is the right many people claim to be granted. As indicated by Emanuel et al (2016), “many feel that demise with poise, either alone or with others, is unquestionably desirable over death without nobility, regardless of whether it be waiting or rather unexpected”. Many imagine that since they are in the last phases of their lives, they ought to reserve the privilege for all time to alleviate their pain and languishing.
Advocates of assisted-suicide believe that pain drugs don’t generally stop their agony and that their primary care physicians are not providing them with satisfying pain management methods. They feel that passing is the best way to for all time free them of their difficult condition. As indicated by Yang & Curlin (2016) “A large number of Americans with critical or interminable agony related to their clinical issues are being under-treated as doctors progressively neglect to give thorough pain medication – either because of lacking training, individual biases or fear of professionally prescribed medication misuse”. Many feel that passing is the main way out of their agony and lean toward death as an option in contrast to the poor quality of life.
Euthanasia doesn’t generally go easily and on certain events, there are excruciating outcomes that patients suffer from the medications that are prescribed. Some side effects can include outrageous perplexity, anxiety, and feelings of terror. As indicated by Yang & Curlin (2016), “The body can oust the medications through vomiting, or the individual may fall into a prolix condition of unconsciousness instead of passing on quickly”. In the event that a patient encounters complications from the medications given, it can make them languish over days before they really bite the dust. Since drugs affect each individual differently, there is no certain method to know whether euthanasia will go as arranged.
In summary, I can discern why an individual would need to end their agony and misery, however, I accept that aiding somebody’s demise is murder and in this manner, ought to remain illegal. As per O’Rourke, O’Rourke & Hudson (2017) “the Hippocratic Oath states, I will neither give a dangerous medication to anyone whenever requested it nor will I make a recommendation with this impact.” What does this Hippocratic Oath truly mean if a trusted doctor breaks his promise and aids a patient’s passing? In what capacity can trust be set up between a specialist and his patient if his fundamental objective conflicts with his promise to recuperate? At the point when doctors break this promise, the promise amounts to nothing. Passing with dignity can be practiced without the use of deadly infusions of morphine to aid one’s suicide. This kind of “killing” ought to never be legalized under any situation. No individual ought to ever reserve the option to take another person’s life, regardless of whether it is entreated.
References
Emanuel, E. J., Onwuteaka-Philipsen, B. D., Urwin, J. W., & Cohen, J. (2016). Attitudes and practices of euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide in the United States, Canada, and Europe. Jama, 316(1), 79-90.
Kussmaul, W. G. (2017). The slippery slope of the legalization of physician-assisted suicide. Annals of internal medicine, 167(8), 595-596.
O’Rourke, M. A., O’Rourke, M. C., & Hudson, M. F. (2017). Reasons to reject physician-assisted suicide/physician aid in dying.
Sulmasy, L. S., & Mueller, P. S. (2018). Ethics and the legalization of physician-assisted suicide. Annals of internal medicine, 168(11), 834-835.
Yang, Y. T., & Curlin, F. A. (2016). Why physicians should oppose assisted suicide. Jama, 315(3), 247-248.
The post An Argument against Physician-Assisted Suicide (PAS) appeared first on Infinite Essays.
