Introduction
It is important to note that the debate surrounding the ethical consequences of doctor-aided death is intense, focusing on the patient’s rights to autonomy, mental capacity, convictions, and principles. The given choice additionally clashes with physicians’ moral and professional values. No simple or clear-cut resolution exists for this intricate ethical conundrum. Factors such as upbringing, education, and religion contribute to the varied viewpoints on such complicated subjects (Edge & Groves, 2017).
The Doctor-Assisted Suicide Debate: Arguments For and Against
For some, medically assisted dying is ethically permissible, as they argue that those with terminal illnesses should have the autonomy to determine how and when they pass away. On the other hand, critics argue that it violates the Hippocratic Oath by harming patients, as it does not constitute medical care (Pesut et al., 2019). In response, supporters of doctor-assisted suicide raise the issue of when the quality of life ceases to be significant.
The Utilitarian approach posits that doctor-assisted suicide is ethically justifiable since it is based on the patient’s best interest, with the family’s role limited to expressing their wishes. The physician providing or prescribing medication to end the patient’s suffering could lead to a greater good. The assertion that permitting physician-assisted suicide would decrease healthcare costs can be ethically scrutinized. However, one study suggests that legalizing medical aid for dying would only reduce healthcare expenses by 1% (Edge & Groves, 2017).
Advocates of physician-assisted death argue that allowing a patient to choose their own death could facilitate organ donations for individuals who are not terminally ill but need transplants (Edge & Groves, 2017). As terminal illnesses often cause the progressive deterioration of multiple organs, it seems reasonable to use organs from willing terminally ill patients in a way that provides others with an opportunity to live.
As critics argue that physician-assisted death is improper and unethical, the issue of its ethicality must be tackled. Those who oppose physician-assisted suicide also contend that it breaches the Hippocratic Oath and erodes the doctor-patient relationship, as ending someone’s life is perceived as devaluing life itself (Pesut et al., 2019).
Hence, equating the value of life with factors such as healthcare cost savings or inconvenience caused by suffering and terminal illness, as some proponents suggest, is tantamount to dismissing the worth of human life. Another challenge in the debate over legalizing physician-assisted suicide lies in how the medical community should teach residents and medical students about the appropriate circumstances and methods for ending a human life.
Euthanasia necessitates professionals to proactively make joint decisions and consider workload, family needs, and participants’ end-of-life wishes. Thus, the first step is to communicate with the patient and acquire his or her decision to respect patient autonomy. The second action is to include family members and assess their needs. The third step is to engage other professionals to ensure joint decision-making. The final stage is related to legal matters, where all essential documents are prepared.
My personal values are challenged with respect to patient autonomy because I believe every person should have a right to own his or her life and end it whenever he or she desires. Therefore, I am personally biased toward pro-euthanasia advocates. In my old age, or if I become terminally ill, I would want to have the option of euthanasia so I would not suffer and lose my dignity at the end of my life.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the terms physician-assisted suicide and physician-assisted death can both describe the practice of a doctor providing a lethal dose of medication to a patient, enabling them to end their own life. Meanwhile, euthanasia can be either categorized as passive or active. Unlike active euthanasia, which entails directly causing someone’s death upon request, passive euthanasia involves accelerating a person’s death by withdrawing certain support and allowing the individual to die naturally. Physician-assisted suicide is contentious, as opponents argue that it harms patients and breaches the Hippocratic Oath. However, proponents maintain that the suffering and anguish experienced by patients and their families could be more harmful.
References
Edge, R. S., & Groves, J. R. (2017). Ethics of health care: A guide for clinical practice (4th ed.). Cengage Learning US.
Pesut, B., Thorne, S., Greig, M., Fulton, A., Janke, R., & Vis-Dunbar, M. (2019). Ethical, policy, and practice implications of nurses’ experiences with assisted death: A synthesis. Ans. Advances in Nursing Science, 42(3), 216-230. Web.
