Ending the life of terminally ill patients is one of the most contentious issues in the United States and across the globe. The American people are divided on whether these patients should be allowed to terminate their lives. On the one hand, there are those who feel that while individuals have the right to die with dignity, man lacks the authority to take their own life. On the other hand is a camp composed of Americans who are of the view that a dignified death is an inviolable right. The arguments that the two camps raise possess merit and should be considered. However, a comparison of the perspectives of the two sides leads one to conclude that terminally ill individuals should be allowed to end their own lives.
Value of Life
The worth of human life lies in the value that it delivers. In the discussion below, arguments concerning the diminished value and satisfaction that terminally ill patients derive from their lives are presented.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Illness Decreasing Health Issues
Euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide are usually availed to patients with terminal illnesses. The fact that these patients endure unimaginable pain and discomfort is among the primary bases for arguing that they should be allowed to terminate their lives (Olie & Courtet, 2016). For the purpose of illustration and clarity, an example should be considered. Consider a cancer patient who has been bedridden for three years. Physicians have established that this patient has no hope of recovery and is likely to die within the next six months. The fact that this patient’s illness has diminished his health and eroded the quality of his life are valid grounds to appeal for the patient to be permitted to end his life. Forcing terminally ill patients to continue to endure illness is both cruel and unjustifiable. Therefore, the US should follow the example of such nations as Belgium which has enacted laws legalizing euthanasia.
Refusal of Medical Treatment
Patient autonomy and informed consent are among the principles that guide medical practice in the US. Physicians and other medical practitioners need to recognize that patients have the right to make decisions about their health. These decisions include refusing treatment (Wolf, Berlinger & Jennings, 2015). While practitioners have an obligation to inform patients and deliver the best possible quality of care, they must leave final decisions to the patient. Therefore, when a patient decides that they no longer wish to be provided with life-sustaining treatment, this wish needs to be respected. By allowing patients to terminate their lives, practitioners demonstrate that they acknowledge and respect the rights of patients to refuse treatment.
Burden on Family
Treating terminal illness is usually costly and burdensome. In 2015, cancer patients in the US spent a whopping $11.1 billion on supportive care (Glover, 2015). This cost represents the burden that terminal illness imposes. While individual patients help to pay for the treatment, the burden is mostly borne by their families. The longer a patient is placed on treatment, the higher the costs that they incur. Therefore, by continuing to treat patients who have no hope of recovery, physicians essentially increase the weight of the financial burden. The burden that the family bears goes beyond financial strain. Families of terminally ill patients also watch helplessly as their loved ones waste away (Washington & Leaver, 2015). To spare the families of the pain and financial hardship, patients should be allowed to die with dignity.
Right to Die
For a clearer understanding of the need to let individuals die with dignity, it is necessary to examine this issue from a rights perspective. This is done in the discussion below.
Decision of Own Life
The right to make decisions regarding one’s own life is among the foundations for the calls for patients with no hope of recovery to end their lives. In such places as New South Wales, legislators have passed laws which enable terminally ill patients to exercise their right to make decisions about their lives (Godfrey, 2017). While it is controversial, this law will offer relief to the thousands of patients who endure hardship and heavy financial burdens. The legislators in the United States need to act in the best interest of patients who desperately desire to be relieved from their pain and anguish. It is indeed encouraging that such states as Oregon have demonstrated their recognition of individual’s right to die. In this state, terminally ill patients can request their physicians to facilitate their death.
Constitutional Right
The constitution is the supreme law of the land. This means that its provisions need to be enforced strictly. It is true that the US constitution does not have any provision which explicitly stipulates that individuals have an inviolable right to die. However, the provisions have been interpreted to mean that the right to die is constitutionally-enshrined and protected. For example, in Cruzan v. Director, MO Department of Health, the U.S. Supreme Court established that patients have the right to reject treatment (Cohen, Hoffman & Sage, 2016). This right remains even when the withdrawal of treatment results in the patient’s death. Therefore, by interpretation, the US constitution recognizes the right to die. Legislators in the country need to enact a law which makes this right explicit and clearer.
Self-Worth
One’s Choice
Individual choice has been presented as among the bases for the argument that individuals have the right to a dignified death. The academic community has attempted to understand the damage that terminal illness does to the self-esteem and image of patients. It has been observed that these patients tend to have low and unhealthy perceptions of their lives (Moreira et al., 2015). Essentially, these individuals feel that their lives have lost all worth. They simply desire to be redeemed from their misery through a dignified death. In response to the desires of these patients, the US needs to pass laws which guarantee the right to die with dignity,
One should be in Control of their Own Death
In the discussion above, self-esteem and sense of self-worth have been presented as concepts that are closely linked to the question of euthanasia. In addition to these concepts, euthanasia also presents implications for patient autonomy and control. Patients desire to have some level of control over their personal affairs and lives (Rodriguez-Prat et al., 2016). Determining how and when they die is one of the issues that patients wish to control. When they are forced to let a terminal illness run its course, patients are stripped of control and their fate is determined by society. It is critical for the US to recognize that by offering terminally ill patients have a dignified death, it will be placing control back in the hands of these patients.
The discussion above has made it clear that individuals have the right to die with dignity. However, while the arguments presented are sound and valid, it is necessary to acknowledge that there are other arguments which go against the position presented above. The fear that euthanasia can be used to exploit such vulnerable people as the elderly is among these arguments. There are those who fear that when the right to die is recognized, these vulnerable people will be victimized. Another common argument that by passing euthanasia laws, the US will set itself on a slippery slope culminating in total moral decline. It is true that these arguments are sound. However, the arguments do little to erode the position that individuals have the right to a dignified death.
Conclusion
The American public remains sharply divided over the right of terminally ill patients to die with dignity. These divisions are also reflected in the views of elected leaders and the academic community. While the divisions are significant, they do not make a consensus impossible. The consensus should involve recognizing that the right to a dignified death is inviolable. Terminally ill patients grapple with pain and hardships which make them question if there life has any value. In addition to the pain that they experience, these patients also impose financial and emotional burdens on their families. There is a dire need for the US to respect the rights of its people and understand that the right to die with dignity is an individual choice.
References
Cohen, I. G., Hoffman, A. K., & Sage, W. M. (2016). The Oxford handbook of U.S. health Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Glover, L. (2015). Oncologists worry about rising costs of cancer treatment. U.S. News. Retrieved June 27, 2018 from https://health.usnews.com/health-news/patient-advice/articles/2015/07/01/oncologists-worry-about-rising-costs-of-cancer-treatment
Godfrey, M. (2017). Euthanasia laws to give terminally ill patients right to die. Retrieved June 27, 2018 from https://www.news.com.au/national/nsw-act/euthanasia-laws-to-give-terminally-ill-patients-right-to-die/news-story/dc377bb781767bb245a0775bd5343b70
Moreira, N. S., Sousa, C. S., Poveda, V. B., & Turrini, R. N. T. (2015). Self-esteem of cancer Patients’ caregivers with reduced functional capacity. Escola Anna Nery, 19 (2),316-322.
Olie, E., & Courtet, P. (2016). The controversial issue of euthanasia in patients with Psychiatric illness. JAMA, 316 (6), 656-7.
Rodriguez-Prat, A., Monforte-Royo, C., Porta-Sales, J., Escribano, X., & Balaguer, A.(2016). Patient perspectives on dignity, autonomy and control at the end of life:Systematic review and meta-ethnography. Plos One, 11 (3). DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0151435
Washington, C. M., & Weaver, D. T. (2015). Principles and practice of radiation Therapy. Amsterdam: Elsevier Health Sciences.
Wolf, S. M., Berlinger, N., & Jennings, B. (2015). Forty years on end-of-life care- from patients’Rights to systemic reform. The New England Journal of Medicine, 372, 678-682.
