Assisted Dying
Should physicians and other medical personnel directly end the lives of patients or assist patients who choose to end their own lives?
Introduction
The question of whether doctors and other medical personnel should assist patients to end lives directly or indirectly has sparked controversies among healthcare providers in public and private health sectors. Passive euthanasia, which involves withdrawing treatment vital in sustaining life, is accepted in most countries across the globe. However, active euthanasia, which involves taking part or assisting patients to end life, is widely unacceptable and prohibited by law in most nations (Sulmasy et al. 2016). Countries such as Belgium and Netherlands have come up with laws for regulating euthanasia. In nations such as France and the United States, such legislation continues to be discussed. The question that most people ask is should physicians and other medical personnel assist patients to directly end their lives or assist patients who choose to end their own lives?
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Physicians and other medical personnel should not assist patients to directly end their lives or assist patients who choose to end their own lives because it justifies suicide and promotes killing. To begin with, there is no clears distinction between what counts as supporting and advising one to terminate their life. People could take advantage and use this as a way to terminate their own lives or lives of others, in the pretext of a medical condition. There is no clear way to measure how much is to be considered too much suffering for a patient to handle. Assisting certain individuals to terminate their lives does not end the suffering but rather passes it on to others and hence the argument of terminating patients’ suffering is not sufficient and does not account for personal motives.
Ethical Argument
Physicians and other medical personnel directly ending or assisting in ending patients’ lives lead to a wide range of profoundly detrimental consequences. This will diminish the moral regard for life because it gives people the power to decide if they live or die. It allows the killing of people who do not genuinely volunteer to be killed or die. The consequences would be damaging because they would emanate from an initiative which, while nobly motivated, is wrong in principle - attempting to deal with the problems of human beings by killing them Moreover, societies that authorize suicide as a choice for some people soon end up placing pressure on them to 'do the right thing' and kill themselves. Seeing suicide as a solution for some illnesses can only undermine the willingness of doctors and society to learn how to show real compassion and address patients' pain and other problems. In states that have legalized assisted suicide, in fact, most patients request the lethal drugs not due to pain, but due to concerns like 'loss of dignity' and 'becoming a burden on others’. The solution is to care for people in ways that assure them that they have dignity and it is a privilege, not a burden, to care for them as long as they live.
Proponents who think it is ethically sound for physicians to assist patients to end life deem it appropriate as it enables those undergoing unbearable pain and suffering to die. According to them, the duty of a physician or medical personnel to alleviate pain and suffering may be justifiable in some cases (Sulmasy et al. 2016). On the other hand, opponents who think the practice is unethical to argue that the physician and other medical personnel have a duty to preserve life and not to harm it. In most cases, patients go to see the doctor for guidance and treatment. In that sense, when a doctor decides to assist the patient to end life, it has a huge impact on a patient’s outlook. Arguments have been peddled that, in a bid to gain public acceptance, proponents of physician-assisted suicide usually see the need to involve doctors.
Explanation and Defense: Kant’s Deontology
Kant’s theory referred to as deontology is the theory that identifies what is good based on two principles; the motive by which the act is accomplished and the universality of the action. Kant’s theory does not consider the outcomes of the results or the consequences of the action. The motive should be driven by the respect for other people’s rights. In all situations, one must consider the rights of others as they exercise their rights or privileges. The second principle of universality requires one to consider the impact of their action if the motive for which it was conducted or the act itself would be made a universal law (Louden, 2011).
For example, a family may be lacking basic need like food. The family members including children could be starving and crying for a meal. After looking several options without avail, the father as the head of the family considers stealing as an option. He steals money to buy bread and other foodstuffs. Is his conduct ethical? First, the motive is not bad; he steals to feed a hungry family. Now, if his act is made a universal law so that people steal to feed their families will it be a good thing? It will not be. Stealing will be justified even in other areas. Thus, the act becomes unethical since it fails to meet all the two qualifications.
The motive will determine the outcome of this ethical concern as well as the rule of universality. The doctor can perform the act if the patient requests for suicide because they cannot recover from brain damage and incurable illness. First, it is not the doctor’s wish. Secondly, if the rule is applied universally, people will not go about killing since it will be guided by conditions such as brain damage, and irreversible illnesses of which such cases will be found to be limited as compared to other causes of death. However, if the doctor conducts the act without a go-ahead from the patient or family, and the patient dies, the rule cannot be accepted universally and therefore is unethical. Doctors will go about killing as they wish. Thus, in this case, the act can only be ethical if it is requested and under conditions such as terminal illness or brain damages.
Objection and Response
Proponents of the argument that doctors should assist patients to die a rely on the need to people’s autonomy. The decision of circumstances and time of death are personal. People of sound mind should be allowed to decide on the timing and the manner in which they are going to die (Battin, Rhodes & Silvers, 2015). Legislations should not limit someone or the government should not interfere. Most people make such decisions for fear of living in pain or living their life hooked to a life support machine.
By assisting the patient to die, doctors and other medical experts serve justice. To serve justice, very sick patients should be allowed to die the best way they deem fit. Terminally sick patients are allowed by law to discard treatment which they feel will only prolong their suffering (Battin, Rhodes & Silvers, 2015). Some patients continue to suffer, and in some cases, they are not dependent on life support machines, and as such, they should be allowed to hasten their death.
It is unethical to allow doctors and other experts to assist patients to die because it will only set the trend for people to commit suicide. People might decide to seek assistance from doctors to die quickly whenever they feel distressed. Physician-assisted deaths are unethical because they are against the professional integrity of the medical field.
Conclusion
Clearly, both ethically and legally, assisted dying is a controversial matter making most proponents claim that it is a justified approach of lessening the pain and agony that lethally ill patients encounter. On the side of dissenters, they hold that the assisted dying does not consider the human value and go against the medical oath of infringing the rights of any patient. In my opinion, while assisted dying should not be permitted, it should be granted only under exceptional circumstances. For example, patients may sense that they are exhausted with their lives and do not have to continue staying in disgrace. Therefore, in case there are patients who request assisted dying for reasons other than pain reprieve, it is inhumane to reject their appeal.
References
Battin, M. P., Rhodes, R. & Silvers, A. (2015). Physician-Assisted Suicide: Expanding the Debate. New York, NY: Routledge
Louden, R. B. (2011). Kant's human being: essays on his theory of human nature . OUP USA.
Sulmasy, D. P., Travaline, J. M., Mitchell, L. A., & Ely, E. W. (2016). Non-faith-based arguments against physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia, The Linacre Quarterly , 83(3), 246–257. http://doi.org/10.1080/00243639.2016.1201375
