Physician assisted suicide in the medical field has been a highly contentious topic in many parts of the world over the past few decades. Assisted suicide is the act of aiding someone in committing suicide, usually by a doctor or physician. Terminally ill patients are more prone to asking for assisted suicide especially at the last stages of their illness because the pain becomes too unbearable. According to some of these patients and their families, assisted suicide helps in alleviating the pain and letting the patients “die with some dignity”. However, not everyone shares the opinion that physician-assisted suicide is meant to help the patient. Although many people are against it, assisted suicide is legal in some countries like the United States. Six States in America have legalized Physician-assisted suicide, and other States are still fighting for it to be legalized. This paper analyzes whether physicians should be allowed to assist in patient suicide by putting the utilitarian ethical theory into consideration. By putting the utilitarian theory into consideration; physicians should be allowed to assist in the suicide of terminally ill patients because it helps alleviate the patients’ pain, and allowing patients to live in excruciating pain while terminally ill is utterly evil.
In reference to the utilitarian theory, the role of pleasure and pain is fundamental in human life. According to this theory, pleasure and pain are quantifiable; and any action taken by humans should put into consideration the consequences of the outcome (Quill and Battin, 2004). Will the action cause pleasure or pain? If the action is deemed to inflict pain on other humans, or ones’ self, the action is considered evil. When quantifying pleasure or pain, factors such as the duration, intensity and certainty/uncertainty are considered (Quill and Battin, 2004). Therefore, for terminally ill patients, the pain they suffer is always certainly present, is excruciating, and the patient suffers from the agonizing pain until they die. Putting all these factors into consideration, it is safe to say that in reference to the Utilitarian ethical theory, physicians should be allowed to assist in patient suicide.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
This fact can be argued for, from many angles. According to an article by Marcia Angell, she talks about her undying support for the America’s Supreme Court’s decision which upholds that Physicians should be allowed to assist patients in taking their own lives under circumstances of terminal illnesses (Angell, 2007). She mainly focuses on the ethical and medical aspects of this decision. First and foremost, the most important ethical principle in the field of medicine is the respect for the autonomy of patients. When this principle conflicts with others during medical procedures, it is considered important that the doctors consider it first. Doctors should always inform their patients about the consequences of all the procedures they perform on them and in turn, honour the requests or decisions of their patients. Therefore, as long as the patient is of sound mind, and understands the nature of their decision, doctors should honour the decision of terminally ill patients that want to end their life (Angell, 2007). Marcia also argues that terminally ill patients are in excruciating pain and one major reason that they request for assisted suicide is because they want to die with some dignity. According to this article, there is no need in prolonging the life of a patient who is in agonizing and will in no doubt, eventually die. Physicians should honour the patients’ autonomy and respect their decisions. Although many people may argue that assisted suicide is a form of murder, it is the opposite. By stopping the life-sustaining treatments that terminally ill patients are given, the physician is just letting the disease cause the inevitable; death. Therefore, if the patients are going to die eventually, why prolong their suffering? Many pro-life advocates may argue that assisting patients with suicide is an inhuman act by the physician, by actually, allowing the patient to live a life of misery and agonizing pain when it is clear that they are terminally ill and that they will definitely die, is the actual inhumane act (Angell, 2007).
According to an article by Kathleen Foley (2007), physician-assisted suicide is wrong, inhuman, and should not be legalized. She applies the deontological ethics theory to argue out her points. This theory usually emphasizes on the morality of actions when dealing with people. This theory points out that the actions of human beings should be based on their moral obligation despite their consequences (Quill and Battin, 2004). This article evaluates the arguments presented by the Second and Ninth Circuit Courts of Appeals in a bid to lift the ban on assisted suicide. One of the arguments presented by the courts of Appeals is that, “The competent terminally ill adult, having lived nearly the full measure of his life has a strong interest in choosing a dignified and humane death, rather than being reduced to a state of helplessness, diapered, sedated, incompetent” (Foley, 2007). This argument has however been challenged in several debates which have declared this argument and dismissed it as a legal jargon that shows zero priority to and value for the life of the dying. Although some people may argue that the terminally ill patients are special hence, assisted suicide would be justified, by killing such patients, the physician as well as the family members who allow it to happen devalue the life of the patient. As much as they may think that such an act is compassionate and helpful to the patient, it usually is not; because everyone has a right to life, and no one has the right to take another’s life (Foley, 2007). Physician-assisted suicide is, therefore, a selfish act, and it abrogates the responsibility that their families have of taking care of terminally ill patients. Most of the times; the families of the terminally ill patients usually support the physician-assisted suicide, not out of compassion, but because they are tired of taking care of the patients, and the expenses keep piling up. This should not be a basis to support Physician-assisted suicide because they have an obligation to take care of terminally ill family members until they die: naturally. The physician-assisted suicide enthusiasts may base their argument on the fact that the physicians must respect the patients’ autonomy. Hence they should respect their decision on assisted suicide (Foley, 2007). However, aren’t physicians also trained to respect and preserve life and provide care, not death? Why then should physicians just respect the patients’ autonomy? Why not respect life, which is bigger than autonomy? If anything, physicians should apply the deontological theory in such cases because this theory encourages them to adhere to their moral obligation despite the consequences. Yes, the patient will suffer from the pain, but the physicians will uphold their moral obligation as doctors and as human beings by not killing them. Therefore by allowing physicians to participate in assisted suicide, we would be defying their obligation to preserve life (Foley, 2007).
In summary, the two arguments give very convincing views of both sides of the argument. However, I believe that: physicians should be allowed to assist in the suicide of terminally ill patients because it helps alleviate the patients’ pain, and allowing patients to live in excruciating pain while terminally ill is utterly evil. As much as people should respect the sanctity of life, it would be very cruel to let patients, and our loved ones suffer and live in pain when they are eventually going to die. I believe that if the physicians have done all that they can to save the life of the patient with no luck; if there is nothing else that can be done to save such patients; if it is proven that the patient is terminally ill; then it is okay for physicians to assist in patient suicide; with their consent of course.
References
Angell, M. (2007). The Supreme Court and Physician-Assisted Suicide – The Ultimate Right. New England Journal of Medicine , 336(1), 50-53.
Foley, K. M. (2007). Competent Care for the Dying Instead of Physician-Assisted Suicide. New England Journal of Medicine , 336(1), 54-58.
Lodato, D. M. (2009). Physician assisted suicide: an evaluation of the ethics of physician participation in a patient’s decision of self-determined death .
Physician-Assisted Suicide pro and Con . (2007). Rowman & Littlefield Pub Inc.
Quill, T. E., & Battin, M. P. (2004). Physician-assisted suicide: the case for palliative care and patient choice . Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
