Introduction
In layperson’s terms, physician-assisted suicide is the action taken to intentionally end the life of a suffering patient whose chance of survival is minimal. As a result, doctors, after consulting with patients, administer drugs that hasten patient death to relieve their pain. Euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide have long been contentious issues on which experts and governments worldwide disagree. Some experts believe the act violates human rights, while others agree that it is a practice that should be legalized. Today, worldwide support for physician-assisted suicide is growing. Countries such as Belgium, Australia, Canada, Columbia, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, Spain, and New Zealand have legalized voluntary euthanasia, allowing doctors to end patients’ lives with their consent under state law (Dierickx et al. 67). This paper, therefore, argues that physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia should be legal options for terminally ill patients.
Supporting Arguments
Physician-assisted suicide is legal for patients whose medications and care prove unworthy. Assisted suicide should be legalized for patients whose treatment would provide no long-term benefits. Euthanasia is a better option for patients admitted to acute care facilities which have become permanently and severely incompetent to the point where medical technology only supports their lives (Barsness et al.).
This would be reached when doctors and health experts are convinced beyond a shadow of a doubt that the treatment process will never restore their health or cause them to die in their current state. Furthermore, physician-assisted suicide may be a legal option for terminally ill patients when attempts to provide treatment prove insufficient to motivate them to engage in any self-directed activity (Barsness et al.). As a result, physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia should be legal options when the treatment options available to a terminally ill patient prove ineffective.
To relieve terminally ill patients of unnecessary pain, physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia are required. Non-communicable diseases, such as cancer, stroke, heart disease, and other human organ diseases, are now common worldwide, subjecting people to slow and painful deaths (Beaudry).
Such patients struggle in excruciating pain to live their final days with no hope of regaining strength. Being reliant on others, such as family members or nurses, is dehumanizing and will quickly degrade one’s life, eventually leading to stress and depression. Cancer, for example, is incurable if detected at the last minute; thus, patients diagnosed with cancer will continue to suffer despite pain management to reduce their pain severity (Nath et al. 207). However, their pain may be caused by their disturbed minds rather than their open wounds or condition. They fear they will die soon and cannot recover from their ailments. As a result, physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia would be legal options for patients to preserve patient’s bodily autonomy. This would relieve them of any physical, mental, or psychological pain they were experiencing.
Physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia should also be legal options for terminally ill patients to reduce unnecessary medical costs. According to Nath et al., the cost of palliative care is primarily represented by the care and treatment of terminal patients in healthcare (209). The cost is determined by the type of treatment and care received. Patients who require intensive care to extend their lives incur high medical costs (Nath et al. 211).
The technologies installed to administer those services are costly, and the families of terminally ill patients would compensate in some way for installing the specialized machines. Recent studies have quantified the economic burden of treating and caring for terminal patients. Vleminck et al. stated that in Belgium, the Independent Sickness Funds for palliative care increased from $42 million in 2003 to $77 million in 2007 (879). This implies that caring for terminally ill patients is expensive and exhausts family resources such as money and time.
Knowing that terminally ill patients have a low chance of survival, investing significant resources in their treatment and care is futile, and physician-assisted suicide or euthanasia would be a better option. Because caring for terminally ill patients requires many resources, especially when admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU), the family will have to pay a lot of money when their loved one dies. The machines used in healthcare to prolong patients’ lives are expensive; the equal treatment and caring costs are typically transferred to the patient’s families receiving the care (Seneviratne et al. 351). As a result, it is preferable if physician-assisted suicide or euthanasia becomes legal for patients and their families to conserve limited resources for future generations.
Respect for autonomy is another compelling argument for legalizing physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia. Autonomy is a critical asset in the modern world that should be protected and respected (Mendz and Kissane 559). This argument contends that patients desiring euthanasia or assisted suicide express their personal decisions about their life. According to Mendz and Kissane, the desire for euthanasia or assisted suicide is an expression of human freedom (560).
A competent person requesting euthanasia to end their life is lawful, and the same may be said for individuals who are terminally sick and unable to make that decision for themselves. Depending on the patient’s situation, an individual, patients, or their family members may request assisted suicide. Patients with advanced cancer, for example, may choose assisted suicide due to the constant physical agony, mental disruption, and psychological torture that the disease has caused them. In this instance, euthanasia and assisted suicide would be moral because the patient would die anyway. As a result, legalizing assisted suicide for such people would be preferable to exposing the patient and their relatives to wasteful expense.
Opposing Views
Other professionals, governments, and religions are opposed to euthanasia and assisted suicide, calling them unethical practices that deprive individuals of their freedom to live and die naturally. According to Kouwenhoven et al., physician-patient-aided suicide undermines duties and responsibilities to care for the sick and allows nature to run its course (46). Furthermore, additional studies show that physicians and doctors, as well as traditional healers, have a responsibility to utilize their knowledge and talents to help patients rather than harm them (Kouwenhoven et al. 48). Physicians also must attend to patients while attempting to maintain health standards without jeopardizing the safety of patients. As a result, these arguments contend that it is unethical for physicians to deliberately help in the death of a patient since they are bound by regulations that forbid such activities.
Religions are typically opposed to euthanasia and assisted suicide, emphasizing that life is a gift from God. According to Sabriseilabi and Williams, life is a gift from God, and only He can choose when one dies (2). Christians also believe that birth and death are natural stages of life that must be observed and appreciated. This indicates that no human being can determine one’s life; hence, it is immoral and unethical for physicians to assist terminally sick patients in dying. According to Sabriseilabi and Williams, human beings are all precious because they were made in the image and likeness of God (6).
Human life processes have inherent dignity and value that no human can deny. Thus, advocating for euthanasia or assisted suicide for terminally sick individuals is equivalent to dismissing one’s existence as unworthy. These decisions contradict Christian teachings, which hold that life, birth, and death are natural living processes that must be recognized. Thus, from a Christian perspective, advocating for assisted suicide or euthanasia based on one’s quality of life is entirely meaningless.
Another reason many people worldwide opposed euthanasia and assisted suicide is the slippery slope argument. According to Potter, many people worldwide oppose physician-assisted suicide because they fear what would happen if it is authorized. Legalizing this conduct, for example, would eliminate other alternatives that, if properly executed, would have prevented such tragedies. Furthermore, it would be customary to perform euthanasia and assisted suicide for anybody who requests it without solid justifications.
This has been seen in the Netherlands since the 1980s when the Dutch government suspended the penalty for physicians discovered to perform voluntary euthanasia (Potter). According to statistics, during the 1990s, more than half of assisted suicide and euthanasia in the Netherlands was no longer voluntary (Potter). As a result of the experience that the Netherlands experienced after legalizing euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide, the rest of the world is wary of legalizing the practice.
Despite the numerous arguments against euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide, the act should be legal for terminally sick individuals. It is the role of physicians to utilize their knowledge and talents to improve the lives of patients and their families (McGrath et al.). As such, the request for euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide is legitimate when the terminally ill person’s family is subjected to mental and psychological agony that has the potential to interfere with their everyday life status.
Furthermore, physician-assisted suicide would be preferable for terminally ill patients suffering excruciating. Concerning religious views on euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide, the arguments are just opinions that have yet to be scientifically established. As a result, religious views on euthanasia should not be used to justify not allowing physician-assisted suicide for terminally ill patients who are dying. Furthermore, slippery slopes are an unproven concept that should not deter terminally ill people from seeking euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide if they choose to die.
Conclusion
From the discussion, physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia should be legal for terminally ill patients. Terminally sick individuals on their deathbeds require urgent and acute treatment that is resource costly. Furthermore, these people have a low probability of survival because most of them are waiting to die. Terminally ill patients are diagnosed with incurable conditions that physicians and other caregivers think only death may ease their suffering. Individuals or families in this situation might want euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide to hasten death. This report also cites resource waste, such as money and time, as a basis for legalizing euthanasia and physician-assisted death for terminally ill patients.
This is justified because, regardless of the resources employed to care for the patients, death is the end outcome, and nothing can change that fate. As a result, euthanasia would be a moral choice to save resources for future generations. Although some individuals oppose physician-assisted suicide for numerous reasons, the act should be authorized. Terminally ill patients would never recover, and physician-assisted suicide would be a better and painless death than the misery they are experiencing.
Works Cited
Barsness, Joseph G., et al. “US Medical and Surgical Society Position Statements on Physician-Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia: A Review.” BMC Medical Ethics, vol. 21, no. 1, 2020. Web.
Beaudry, Jonas-Sébastien. “Death as ‘Benefit’ in the Context of Non-Voluntary Euthanasia.” Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics, 2022. Web.
Dierickx, Sigrid, et al. “Commonalities and Differences in Legal Euthanasia and Physician-Assisted Suicide in Three Countries: A Population-Level Comparison.” International Journal of Public Health, vol. 65, no. 1, 2020, pp. 65–73. Web.
Kouwenhoven, Pauline S. C., et al. “Developments in Euthanasia Practice in the Netherlands: Balancing Professional Responsibility and the Patient’s Autonomy.” European Journal of General Practice, vol. 25, no. 1, 2018, pp. 44–48. Web.
McGrath, Scott P., et al. “Legal Challenges in Precision Medicine: What Duties Arising from Genetic and Genomic Testing Does a Physician Owe to Patients?” Frontiers in Medicine, vol. 8, July 2021. Web.
Mendz, George L., and David W. Kissane. “Agency, Autonomy and Euthanasia.” The Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, vol. 48, no. 3, 2020, pp. 555–64. Web.
Nath, Uma, et al. “Physician-Assisted Suicide and Physician-Assisted Euthanasia: Evidence from Abroad and Implications for UK Neurologists.” Practical Neurology, vol. 21, no. 3, 2021, pp. 205–11. Web.
Potter, Jordan. “The Psychological Slippery Slope from Physician-Assisted Death to Active Euthanasia: A Paragon of Fallacious Reasoning.” Medicine, Health Care, and Philosophy, vol. 22, no. 2, 2018. Web.
Sabriseilabi, Soheil, and James Williams. “Dimensions of Religion and Attitudes toward Euthanasia.” Death Studies, vol. 46, no. 5, 2020, pp. 1–8. Web.
Seneviratne, Udaya, et al. “Medical Health Care Utilization Cost of Patients Presenting with Psychogenic Nonepileptic Seizures.” Epilepsia, vol. 60, no. 2, 2018, pp. 349–57. Web.
Vleminck, Aline De, et al. “Engagement of Specialized Palliative Care Services with the General Public: A Population-Level Survey in Three European Countries.” Palliative Medicine, vol. 36, no. 5, 2022, pp. 878–88. Web.
