Introduction
The making of end-of-life decisions is a highly debated issue, especially with the involvement of physicians. The process has received varied opinions, some of which support the practice while others are disregarding the practice. Despite opposing viewpoints, the right to end-of-life decisions should lie with patients. As a goal, there is a need to apply and consider all factors and opinions in final choices to arrive at an efficient decision. Some of the opposing and supporting viewpoints to assisted suicide are analysed. By considering the factors, it is apparent that patients have a right to make final choices on assisted suicide.
Supporting Viewpoints
One fundamental issue, defending the right to physician-assisted dying is the principle of autonomy. Notably, in bioethics, the principle of autonomy puts more emphasis on the individual rights of self-determination (Mellado, 2016). There is the efficient societal agreement on respecting an individual’s capacity in the making of highly informed decisions that relate to personal matters. Thus, with freedom, one has the ability to making rational and valid decisions without outside influence (Mellado, 2016). When one is terminally ill, the application of the autonomous principle hence makes their opinions on dying valid and deserve incorporation. This makes the patient have a right in dying via assisted physician suicide.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
The right to die is also influenced by heightened suffering, and pain patients in end-of-life situations go through, which sometimes is unbearable in terminal states. In healthcare, patients experience varied forms of pain, which can be acute or even chronic, with subjective impacts on the affected persons (Carvalho et al., 2018). Excessive pain and suffering are some factors contributing to the desire for assisted dying. As a guide, the principle of beneficence is vital in supporting decision-making, which is based on taking actions for benefitting others (Jansen, 2013). With the impacts of illnesses, competent patients with terminal sickness have rights for accessing assisted suicide as one means of bringing an ending to their long sufferings.
Another aspect is that beneficence calls upon health providers to work for the improvement of the patients’ situations, when under their care. It is thus important that when patients are suffering states, physicians have a moral and ethical obligation of improving their situations. Managing the patient’s pain is a crucial responsibility (Carvalho et al., 2018), while beneficence calls upon health providers to ensure benefits while preventing harms (Jansen, 2013). In end-of-life cases, sometimes increased pain causes discomfort and humiliation to the patients. As a measure to end suffering, physician-assisted suicide emerges as an alternative.
The patient also has assisted suicide accessibility rights as a means of relieving families of financial burdens. As noted by Byock (2015), there are significant cost implications incurred during the provision of treatment and life-sustaining care. And with the increasing needs, the expenses are much unbearable for families, making it rationally right to opt for dying. Rather than dying in months, and leaving enormous financial burdens to families, the decision for assisted dying acts as a competent choice, than prolonged life with costly hospitalization.
Thus, in terminally ill incidences, there is the need to allow dying by physician-assisted suicide. As opposed to the persistent suffering, financial burdens as well as pain, assisted dying acts as a critical measure for one to die in a dignified manner while enforcing autonomy. Rather than reliant on others (families, physicians, or federal government), in killing decisions.
Opposing Viewpoints
It is apparent that in deciding patients have an autonomous ability. One factor that disagrees with assisted killing is the unethical aspect of the process, which killing morally wrong (Byock, 2015). As physicians, the life of patients is valuable, despite their status during the end-of-life situations. From a spiritual standpoint, life is deemed as holistic, and beyond the choice of humanity. Incidences of physician collaboration with patients to die are unethical.
Likewise, professional responsibility acts as another aspect that hinders the agreement to physician-assisted dying. As a health provider, physicians are obligated to offer healthcare benefits to their patients (Jansen, 2013). With this role, killing the patient is a violation of medical responsibility. The need for physicians to also do their best in ensuring the recovery of patients is based on Patient-Centred Care (PCC), which requires the holding of patients as a priority (Barnsteiner, Disch & Walton, 2014). And with the professional obligation to care, medical expertise is needed to improve patient health status, rather than assisting in dying.
The other opposing view arises from family/guardians of patients. The caring process focuses on the well-being of specific patients, as well as of families, their values and opinions in care delivery (Barnsteiner, Disch & Walton, 2014). This makes it useful to keep in mind family opinions. Although patients have autonomy power on their body (Mellado, 2016), the family/guardians have impacts on life decisions. First, the patients were profoundly part of their lives, which makes loss detrimental and a severe outcome (Keyes, 2014). Losing family has negative emotional and psychological impacts, especially during grieving periods (Keyes, 2014). Also, doctors killing is morally wrong (Byock, 2015), with implications to those left behind.
Conclusion
There are various ideas on the right for assisted suicide. However, with underlying factors, the finding of a balance in decision-making is vital. As opposed to the side-lined decision, end-of-life choices need to involve patients themselves, health providers, and accompanying families. And based on underlying factors, in end-of-life status, it is evident that the patients have the right to physician-assisted suicide.
References
Barnsteiner, J., Disch, J., & Walton, M. (2014). Person and family-centered care, 2014 AJN award recipient . Sigma Theta Tau.
Byock, I. (2015). Doctor-Assisted Suicide Is Unethical and Dangerous — the New York Times.
Carvalho, A. S., Pereira, S. M., Jácomo, A., Magalhães, S., Araújo, J., Hernández-Marrero, P., ... & Schatman, M. E. (2018). Ethical decision making in pain management: a conceptual framework. Journal of pain research , 11 , 967.
Jansen, L. A. (2013). Between beneficence and justice: the ethics of stewardship in medicine. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy , 38 (1), 50-63.
Mellado, J. M. (2016). Autonomy, consent, and responsibility. Part 1: Limitations of the principle of autonomy as a foundation of informed consent. Radiología (English Edition) , 58 (5), 343-351.
