Nowadays, even in nations where the procedure of euthanasia and assisted suicide has been legal for decades, this topic continues to be controversial due to ethical and policy issues. Today, subjects of life are marked by a lack of agreement and continual dispute, while the law typically promotes a more pluralistic view. Developments in life-prolonging therapies and pain management have been intimately linked with this challenging issue in recent decades, leading to ongoing demand for legislative changes. However, in the light of the demand for freedoms and full-body autonomy, euthanasia and assisted suicide should not be illegal. In this sense, this procedure should be perceived as an individual choice.
The first argument many people use to counter euthanasia is that nobody should be subjected to cruel, inhumane, or degrading treatment. Nevertheless, it is vital to understand that according to the constitution, people are allowed to have full autonomy of their bodies. Several constitutional cases center on one of the most basic cornerstones of U.S. rights and liberties. In this regard, the state cannot refuse freedoms without legal process (Cholbi, 2017). The liberty of competent individuals to reject any offered treatment (regardless of logic), even if this choice may result in damage or even death, is the most potent manifestation of autonomy and self-determination (Cholbi, 2017). This implies that individuals are competent in independently making such a decision (Cholbi, 2017). As a result, gaining informed permission from a person after they have been provided with all pertinent facts about their condition is critical and, therefore, should be sufficient when considering voluntary euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide. In the end, every patient deserves to have an option and full autonomy of their body.
Furthermore, concerns have been expressed regarding vulnerable groups, including the terminally ill, the elderly, and those with mental disorders. There is a legitimate concern that physician-assisted suicide may persuade the nation to believe that pain is needless, that dependence is a burden, and that the existence of disabled or terminally ill people is worthless. Nevertheless, according to Fontalis et al. (2018), recent evidence compiled from Oregon’s 20-year record suggests the contrary. Patients who demand physician-assisted suicide are from a higher socioeconomic background and have better academic achievement than the general population (Fontalis et al., 2018). Oregon, the first state in the United States to authorize voluntary euthanasia, used stringent standards that influenced other states. The conditions included another doctor’s approval, a mental ability exam, and the evidence of a deadly illness with fewer than six months left to live (Fontalis et al., 2018). Additional considerations were optimal pain treatment and accessibility of end-of-life services to ensure a conscious decision.
Lastly, the Hippocratic Oath’s tenets of beneficence and non-maleficence have served as the cornerstone of medical professionals’ ethical conduct for millennia. However, physician-assisted suicide confronts the tension that exists between the true objective of contemporary medical and social treatment and the moral ideals that underpin it (Fontalis et al., 2018). Relief of pain via voluntary euthanasia can be considered a separate element from pain management, with the former – if done responsibly and thoughtfully – arguably the most critical manner for a physician to accomplish their duty to preserve autonomy and freedom and help a patient (Fontalis et al., 2018). In this case, a physician administers a patient in circumstances when other medical options and treatment prove to have no benefit and do not extend or enhance the quality of life of a person with a terminal disease.
In order to reach the position set for the given topic, a rational decision-making model was used. In this situation, I first defined the issue, which is euthanasia and assisted suicide. Then I identified the positions that substituted this issue, which is the position for assisted suicide and against it. After this, it was vital to generate the arguments that were involved in both positions. In the end, the primary goal was to identify which position could be determined as best from the perspective of law, medicine, and ethics. Such a model helped me view the matter from different perspectives and choose the most rational approach.
Hence, the matter concerning euthanasia and assisted suicide is controversial and involves multiple fields, including the legislature, healthcare, and ethics. However, while one group of people would consider this procedure as inhumane, misleading, and contradictory due to the Hypocritic oath, this process still deserves to be an individual option. In this respect, it is crucial to understand that voluntary euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide are based on the personal liberties protected by the constitution and, in fact, align with the Hypocritic oath since the primary goal of the physician is to help the patient. Moreover, this procedure does not impact vulnerable groups of society since patients are given time and data to make a conscious decision. In this case, in order to reach the position on the given topic, a rational decision-making model was utilized to identify and evaluate every position and argument.
References
Cholbi, M. J. (Ed.). (2017). Euthanasia and assisted suicide: Global views on choosing to end life. ABC-CLIO.
Fontalis, A., Prousali, E., & Kulkarni, K. (2018). Euthanasia and assisted dying: What is the current position and what are the key arguments informing the debate? Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 111(11), 407-413.