When a patient has no hope for recovery, is consuming a lot of resources and living under a lot of pain and discomfort, many feel that the physician is obliged to help that patients rest at the soonest possible time. Death is one of the most unpredictable variables in life, based on when it will happen (Lachs, 2013) . This applies even in situations where the attending physician has determined with a high level of certainty that a patient has no chance of recovery. In many cases, families and loved ones who are willing to hope will hold on to life even through mechanized means. These machines and resources especially human resources would be necessary for treating other patients who might stand a chance for recovery. Further, the patient would suffer much pain and discomfort which would be a waste of courage unless there is a possibility for recovery (Lachs, 2013) . However, an alternate opinion can raise the issue that there are credible cases where recovery was deemed impossible but still happened. On a balance of all viewpoints , it is clear that establishing laws that provide guidelines under which physician-assisted suicides can be undertaken would be positive for all parties involved.
Explanation and Demonstration of Moral Reasoning
Overview
It would be important to admit from the very advent that this is not a simple or straightforward issue as it involves the taking of human life. The fact that this life will soon be gone anyway does not negate the fact that life will be taken away. Further, even when an individual elects to die through suicide, that decision also affects the individual's loved ones adversely. This makes assisted suicide a critical act that needs a careful balancing. First, ethics must be considered as physicians and other medical officers are sworn to protect life. It must be shown that ethically, taking a life can be considered part of the process of protecting life. This ethical argument can take a philosophical approach such as the greater good theory as premised on utilitarianism as defined by John Stuart Mill (Sverdlik, 2016) .
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
The subject of assisted suicide is not just about what is right or wrong but what is legal or illegal. This brings in the concept of deontology from the perspective of Kantianism as developed by Immanuel Kant (Vaughn, 2015) . Deontology relates to doing right based on the laws and rules applicable to a situation while Kantianism related to actions being aligned with a moral duty. The motive of the actor under Kantianism must be shown to be aligned to a certain obligation that the actor is supposed to adhere. When the two philosophical concepts are combined, Mill’s utilitarianism qualifies the action while Kantianism defines the motive behind the action. The values that engender human dignity must also be shown to be protected and upheld in the discussion that will provide a conclusion based on the thesis above.
Application of Utilitarianism
Utilitarianism is a philosophical concept that falls under consequentialism thus considering actions based on their outcomes. Mill may not have developed utilitarianism but has it credited with the version of Utilitarianism that is most accepted today (Sverdlik, 2016) . This version indicates that an action is defined based on the amount of pleasure or pain that it brings. This pleasure is measured based on its intensity and to how many people it impacts. The aggregate rightness or wrongness of an action can thus be determined by how much pleasure it gives as compared to how much pain it brings. As a secondary factor, how many people feel this pain or pleasure is also a factor (Sverdlik, 2016) . From the perspective of the instant scenario, the patient is in a lot of pain, and there is no happy ending. The family is in psychological agony hoping against hope that their loved one would be healed. Medical bills are piling adding to the possible pain for the family after the passing on of their loved one. Most importantly, the resources being utilized by the terminal patient, including the physician and nurses are made unavailable for other patients who need it and might even stand a chance of recovery if these resources are availed. From the perspective of all involved, physician-assisted suicide is the right thing. Thus the law should allow for it.
Application of Deontology
This argument on physician-assisted suicide goes beyond the area of morality into the sticker area of legality. The argument is not whether it is right for physicians to assist patients who want to commit suicide. Had that been the case, the matter would have been rested at the utilitarian argument. Deontology relates right and wrong to laws, rules, and regulations (Vaughn, 2015) . In this regard, these are the laws, rules, and regulations that superintend over the practice of medicine. Values will also come in under this area since upholding professional values is also a duty for every professional, especially doctors as they have a very high level of control in their practice. Among the arguments under deontology is that the physician's massive discretionary powers should be buttressed by adding right to life and death to them. The right answer is, each time the physician handles a patient, the life, and death of that patient is in the hands of the physician. Even an accident by the practitioner can lead to the death of the patient (Shanafelt et al., 2017) . Allowing for physician-assisted suicide cannot, therefore, be considered as empowering the practitioner but rather removing a critical impediment. This is the impediment that disallows the physician from considering all available options when handling a patient.
Questions that come to fore, however, include what happens when a hospital is stuck with a poor patient who cannot afford to pay medical expenses and a well-covered patient appears and is in need of the same medical equipment. The hospital might be tempted to be more inclined to euthanize the poor patient to create room for the affluent one. This is where deontology comes in to create an understanding of motive and duty (Vaughn, 2015) . The practice of medicine is all about trust and if the same is not present and deemed to be present, then this profession is lost. Under deontology, the ethical provisions of the practice would be extended to ensure that when physician-assisted suicide is legalized, the same will only be used for the right motive in the interest of the patient and the profession. In this regard, physicians can borrow heavily from the concept of care as applied in modern nursing where the patient satisfaction rather than survival is considered paramount.
Objection and Response
Among the most prominent cases of physician-assisted suicide in America happened in New Orleans at the height of the Hurricane Katrina crisis. The physician involved was indicted for murder with the argument being made that the patients may have survived had they not be euthanized. The argument that an error can be made in determining whether or not a patient is terminal is a factual one because errors do happen in the medical profession almost always. Indeed, according to Mayo Clinic’s Stephen J. Swensen, 700 Americans die daily because of errors by healthcare officials (Shanafelt et al, 2017) . This does not make American hospitals centers of mass murder because of the overall, hundreds of lives are saved for every life lost.
This brings in the concept of utilitarianism once again. In every a hundred or so true diagnosis, a doctor will make an error or even a grave error, but if the doctor is forced to second-guess every decision, the hundreds will suffer, not one in a hundred. It is on this basis that this objection, despite having merit cannot overcome the greater merit that supports the case for physician-assisted patient suicide. The doctor might make a mistake or two in determining whether or not a patient is terminal or not. This is a matter of process and does not negate the concept upon which the issue of physician-assisted suicide is being canvassed. This concept is that if the patient is indeed terminal and suffering, then ending the suffering sooner is more benign to the patient than allowing death to take its eventual course after days, months or years of suffering (Lachs, 2013) .
Conclusion
If the voices of Emmanuel Kant and John Stuart Mill were to be considered in combination, there is no doubt that they would support the legalization of physician-assisted suicide for patients. This suicide option must, however, only be limited to scenarios where the patient is terminal and suffering thus the practitioner determines that waiting for the eventuality of death would not be in the best interests of all the parties involved. Under Mill’s utilitarianism, it is clear that the right thing to do is end the suffering of the patient, the anxiety of the loved ones and also free the resources being spent on the patient so they can assist other patients. Under deontology, it is clear that it is within the ambit of clinical practice for the life of a patient to be in the hands of the physician . Not having a law that allows the physician to pursue all the available options is a major handicap that ought to be eliminated.
References
Lachs, J. (2013). Physician-assisted suicide. Contemporary Debates in Bioethics , 25 , 203-211
Shanafelt, T., Sinsky, C., & Swensen, S. (2017, August 16). Medical errors and preventable deaths in U.S. Hospitals. Retrieved November 08, 2017, from https://catalyst.nejm.org/medical-errors-preventable-deaths/
Sverdlik, S. (2016). Consequentialism, moral motivation, and the deontic relevance of motives. Moral Motivation: A History .
Vaughn, L. (2015). Doing ethics: Moral reasoning and contemporary issues . New York: WW Norton & Company
