Dealing With Complexity: Physician-Assisted Death

Overview of the Issue 

Physician-assisted death is one of the most sophisticated contemporary issues that is facing people today. Physician-assisted death is when the medical personnel provides a lethal drug or medication to terminate the life of a suffering patient ( Largent et al., 2019). Currently, many states in the United States are allowing the practice to terminate a patient suffering from chronic illness ( Derse et al., 2019). Some procedures are thus in places such as the extent of diseases and the consent of the patient. For instance, the court in California allows terminally ill people to request physician-assisted suicide when they feel that they are unable to make it again ( Mondragón et al., 2019). The physician has the option to enable their patients to end the process of suffering by assisting them with a lethal drug to end their lives. The issue is one of the most contested in the country and the world. 

The Issue from Different Perspectives 

In the field of healthcare, physician-assisted suicide is an issue that is bringing a lot of confusion. First, the healthcare institution has ways to manage terminally ill patients. The problem is that most medical teams make rush decisions in the hospital before exhausting such options of caring for terminally ill patients ( Jones, 2019). Therefore, most healthcare institution encourages medical teams to go for therapeutic options that increase life before assisted suicide becomes the main option ( McClelland & Goligher, 2019). Also, the healthcare discipline teaches ethics and legality when caring for such patients. Therefore, the healthcare systems have guidelines that the paramedics should use while facing such a tough decision. Assisted suicide is also relevant in the religious field. The field of theology deals with the need to put God first as the giver and taker of life ( McClelland & Goligher, 2019). Therefore, the field of theology champion for the need to put God first in every life. In this field, assisted suicide is immoral and contradicts the morality doctrine of religion. It is one of the dilemmas that the paramedics believe in religion have to ponder before deciding their practices. 

The Arguments 

For those who defend the assisted suicide, they claim that people have autonomy over their lives. Therefore, they have the will to terminate their lives when they feel that it is no longer worth living. For these people, there is no need for suffering if a person understands that the disease is likely to kill them ( van Veen et al., 2020). Such people, therefore, need to have the right to consent to their death so that they get dignified death. However, those who argue against assisted death claim God is the giver and taker of life and the taker. Therefore, people have no right to take their lives. They also say that assisted suicide jeopardizes the belief of some medical personnel ( Derse et al., 2019). Consequently, they believe that it would not be moral to force paramedics to carry out a process that contradicts their faith. They also argue that, to some extent, some people may take this as an opportunity to stop or avoid exhausting the available options. 

The Defense 

The ethics of autonomy that give a patient the power to make decisions that affect their lives is useful in some context. However, it is an ethical view that morality should override in some situations. I think that in the case of suicide, utilitarianism should override autonomy. The consequences of death should be on the people and not the patient. Those people who are likely to feel the pain, in this case, are the medical team assisting with the death, the family, and close relatives. In this case, utilitarianism sees such a situation as immoral. Therefore, the consideration should be on the majority of people who will feel the pain and not the patient. 

References 

Derse, A. R., Moskop, J. C., McGrath, N. A., Vearrier, L. E., Clayborne, E. P., Goett, R. R., &LimehouseJr, W. E. (2019). Physician ‐ assisted Death: Ethical Implications for Emergency Physicians.  Academic Emergency Medicine ,  26 (2), 250-255. 

Derse, A. R., Moskop, J. C., McGrath, N. A., Vearrier, L. E., Clayborne, E. P., Goett, R. R., &LimehouseJr, W. E. (2019). Physician ‐ assisted Death: Ethical Implications for Emergency Physicians.  Academic Emergency Medicine ,  26 (2), 250-255. 

Jones, D. G. (2019). Ethical Perspectives on Body Donation Following Physician ‐ Assisted Death.  Anatomical sciences education . 

Largent, E. A., Terrasse, M., Harkins, K., Sisti, D. A., Sankar, P., &Karlawish, J. (2019). Attitudes Toward Physician-Assisted Death From Individuals Who Learn They Have an Alzheimer Disease Biomarker.  JAMA neurology ,  76 (7), 864-866. 

McClelland, W., & Goligher, E. C. (2019). Withholding or withdrawing life support versus physician-assisted death: a distinction with a difference?.  Current Opinion in Anesthesiology ,  32 (2), 184-189. 

Mondragón, J. D., Salame, L., Kraus, A., & De Deyn, P. P. (2019). Clinical Considerations in Physician-Assisted Death for Probable Alzheimer’s Disease: Decision-Making Capacity, Anosognosia, and Suffering.  Dementia and geriatric cognitive disorders extra ,  9 (2), 217-226. 

Van Veen, S. M. P., Scheurleer, W. F. J., Ruijsch, M. L., Röder, C. H., Widdershoven, G. A. M., & Batalla, A. (2020). Last-Minute Recovery of a Psychiatric Patient Requesting Physician-Assisted Death.  Psychiatric Services , appi-ps.