Physician-Assisted Dying: Legal and Ethical Dilemma Research Paper

Some of the ill people admitted to a health care facility may express their desire to die. This decision may result from the prolonged suffering linked to their particular sicknesses. Others wish to die because they think they are a burden to their family members and relatives or even because no one shows concern to them. This paper presents a case of a terminally ill patient, Mary Evelyn Green. Parties taking care of this patient are facing a legal and ethical dilemma regarding her civil liberty to live or die. It is crucial to note that failing to comply with sick peoples’ wishes to end their lives may subject interested parties to various repercussions as revealed later in this paper.

Legal and Ethical Dilemma in the Case and a Patient’s Right to Die

In the current case study, Mrs. Green allegedly expresses her desire to die to end to her continuous suffering. Her son, David, threatens to file a case if his mother’s right to make choices regarding her health is not granted. He believes that his ailing maternal parent has the right to decide what she deems appropriate for her and that no one should prevent any patient from doing so. The legal dilemma elicited in this case revolves around whether David has the right to decide on behalf of his mother regarding her death wish, bearing in mind that he has been granted the power of a legal representative (Yentis et al., 2017). On the other hand, another ethical dilemma arises since some people view life as sacred. As such, it should not be terminated at will. This quandary called for committee members of the facility to meet and give their opinions.

The case study relates to the right of a patient to die in various ways. To begin with, terminally ill people have the right to choose whether to live, or be allowed to pass on (Emanuel, Onwuteaka-Philipsen, Urwin, & Cohen, 2016). Ailing people such as Mrs. Greene become distressed to the extent of viewing death as the ultimate solution to their suffering. This option is seen in the current case study when David’s mother allegedly expresses the desire to end her life in line with the civil liberty discussed above. Ordinarily, the lasting power of an attorney allows the legal representative to determine whether a client should be removed from life-sustaining treatment services. However, attorneys cannot make such decisions if the respective patients are capable of choosing for themselves. If any request is granted, the particular terminally ill patient is usually given some medication to hasten their death in a painless manner (Tschirhart, Du, & Kelley, 2014). In the case study, Mrs. Greene has dementia, which may limit her mental fitness to make this important decision. However, it is unclear whether she has communicated to David regarding her wish to die.

Potential Repercussions of Failing to Comply with a Patient’s Wishes

Healthcare providers who ignore sick people’s request to be suspended from life support services may encounter various consequences. One such repercussion is the likelihood of patients’ family suing the facility for noncompliance. In the United States, withholding life support is a legal right based on the principles of informed consent and refusal (Tschirhart et al., 2014). No form of treatment should be initiated without the authorization of the respective ailing people, their family, or the power of legal representatives. If a particular patient’s relatives win the case, the facility may be compelled to pay huge sums of money as compensation. Further, a healthcare practitioner who fails to comply with such a request may face disciplinary actions under the profession’s guidelines.

Despite the fact that patients are responsible for their decisions whether to live or die, many issues still arise whereby some decisions should take precedence over others. Many debates have been conducted unsuccessfully because people never come up with a clear standpoint. Some scholars such as Morrison and Kang (2014) support the idea that terminally sick people should be allowed to decide whether to live or not while others may be against it. In particular, I maintain the view that patients should be protected against harm rather than being granted the right to terminate their lives.

The answer above is founded on the awareness that individuals are entitled to health care. Hence, they should be protected, irrespective of their conditions instead of letting them die. A patient’s health may sometimes get worse not because it was supposed to be but due to poor services or doctors’ ignorance. Nonetheless, it is unclear in this case whether Mrs. Greene has expressed the willingness to die. Recent disagreements between David and her indicate that he is compelling his mother to make this decision. At the same time, it may appear unlawful to take David’s instruction to end the patient’s life when it seems to the hospital’s management that she is in a relatively stable state. Perhaps David is exhausted with visiting his mother at the hospital. Being the heir to Mrs. Greene’s estate may be motivating enough for David to wish her death. Thus, common sense dictates that the plea by David to end his mother’s life should be rejected.

Main Facts Pertaining to the Current Issue

As one of the committee members investigating the case of whether David’s request should be granted, some important facts need to be considered. One of these details includes the age of the patient whereby he or she should be 18 years and above (Emanuel et al., 2016). In addition, the ailing person should be someone who is capable of communicating his or her health decisions to the appropriate people. Therefore, it is imperative to ascertain whether Mrs. Greene can make sound judgments on her own. In addition, a sick person should be diagnosed with a terminal illness, which may lead to their death in the next six months. Patients whose health conditions appear stable cannot be granted this right. Instead, they should be treated. Finally, the committee should find out whether the ailing individual is a citizen of the designated country.

The facility needs to take various measures to solve this dilemma. One of these steps involves improving patients’ protection levels and getting closer to them to the extent that they can open up to ease the treatment and healing process. This strategy involves showing concern to sick individuals and doing regular check-ups to find out any problems they may be facing, including ways of helping them. The above approach also entails assuring patients that they will recover even if they are in critical conditions (Morrison & Kang, 2014). One can also ask them the things they are planning to do immediately they leave the hospital to know what they may be thinking about their sicknesses.

The reason for my response above is that showing concern to patients creates the awareness that people still love and care for them, despite their conditions (Gostin & Roberts, 2016). Emphasizing their possibility of recovering can prevent them from thinking about death all the time. Encouraging patients who are completely distressed can change their mindsets because the lack of encouragement makes them think that they are not important in the society. Motivating sick people enhances their healing. Many patients become desperate when are secluded. Relatives may stop or rarely visit their loved ones in a health care facility. As a result, many patients wish to die because they think they are a disappointment or a burden to their families (Marrison & Kang, 2014). Communicating with them helps to do away with their fears. It also minimizes suffering and pain and, consequently, the issue of patients in the facility wishing to die.

Conclusion

Many patients admitted to hospitals for a long period or those whose health conditions worsen day after day end up wishing to die. They believe that death is the only way to free them from the agony they go through in medical facilities. In most cases, the pain of being alone and the lack of people who can visit or motivate them cause this feeling. In many healthcare facilities, individuals with critical illnesses are usually abandoned and/or not given the necessary care and protection. Some doctors or family members abuse them. This situation can devastate patients’ morale, including their health conditions. Medical facilities should strive to protect the sick from abuse. Mistreatment may arise from health officials or patients’ family members. Such protection helps patients to feel wanted and loved by their people, thus facilitating their healing.

References

Emanuel, J., Onwuteaka-Philipsen, B. D., Urwin, J. W., & Cohen, J. (2016). Attitudes and practices of euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide in the United States, Canada, and Europe. JAMA, 316(1), 79-90.

Gostin, L. O., & Roberts, A. E. (2016). Physician-assisted dying: A turning point? JAMA, 315(3), 249-250.

Morrison, W., & Kang, T. (2014). Judging the quality of mercy: Drawing a line between palliation and euthanasia. Pediatrics, 133(1), 31-36.

Tschirhart, E. C., Du, Q., & Kelley, A. S. (2014). Factors influencing the use of intensive procedures at the end of life. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 62(11), 2088-2094.

Yentis, S. M., Hartle, A. J., Barker, I. R., Barker, P., Bogod, D. G., Clutton‐Brock, T. H.,… Plunkett, E. (2017). AAGBI: Consent for anesthesia 2017. Anaesthesia, 72(1), 93-105.