Introduction
Physician-assisted suicide is a hot topic that has managed to stir up heated debates over the years. Two sides have emerged due to this, the people who support it and those who are against it. This has led to a number of states legalizing it while other states are still not up for the idea.
The central issue this report aims to respond and debate about is the main question posed whenever this issue is raised. The question is should physician-assisted suicide be legal?
Physician-assisted suicide is being considered the best choice in cases where prolonging a patient’s life will only prolong suffering, as a result of poor medical condition and its effects (Balkin,2005).
New life prolongation techniques and practices have been developed and improved due to medical advancements. Some of these methods go to extreme boundaries to keep people alive. This is one of the roots behind this dilemma. Various methods that are geared towards the smooth facilitation of this practice have also been developed. These methods are fast and painless and are aimed at making this process as easy as possible.
Questions that have been raised now and again which act as a pivotal point for most of these arguments are mentioned below.
‘How much should a person suffer before the plug is pulled?’.’ should doctors be allowed to terminate a patient’s life?’, and ‘Is a doctor’s help to end one’s life under these circumstances really suicide?’ and ‘should a person be left to decide his or her own fate?’ Above are some of the questions that have led to the drive to reevaluate the preexisting rules (Engadhi, 2009).
This report aims at supporting the need for Physician-assisted suicide. This is done through carefully analyzing and backing the value of the right of the patient to self-determination.
At the same time, there is also the matter of looking at a counter argument that opposes my point of view, which is that people think of this form of relief when they are in tremendous pain and depression and if these two elements are dealt with the option of physician-assisted suicide will not be considered (Roleff, 1998).
Patient’s right to self-determination
In the article the argument is because it is the patient’s choice over if they want to die or not because of bad medical condition. The patient is the one to be in charge. This is obviously, because the patient is the one who is in that situation, not the doctor or the state. The patient can have a number of reasons that may in the end lead to this decision. This may include:
The patient may be in immense pain and this anguish may go on for a very long period. In some cases, the patient may be forced to grapple with the pain for a very long period even if the doctors are sure that the chances of the pain going away are minimal to none.
With this in mind, it is not valid for the government or anyone else to decide how long one is to suffer when there is a solution to the problem. This case has been termed as the mercy argument as it is the only reprieve a patient gets and this finally gives them a chance to end the pain and suffering.
The costs and medical bills realized from trying to keep a patient in this condition are very high. Despite that, the facts that the person may never recover the bills still have to be paid. Thousands of dollars are being paid on people in a vegetative state or in conditions that have slim chances of improving.
The patients’ family may be struggling to keep up and pay the bills while at the same time trying to fend for them. This economy argument on the side of the individual is based on the patients’ consideration of the interests of the family that is put in a difficult situation with an aim of guarantying their general welfare and peace of mind.
This practice is also allowed in some regions around the world. Some states in the US have adapted this option as a last resort and it works. If this practice has been implemented and proves to work well why can other regions not also do the same? This is another argument question often raised that supports this.
The other factor that needs to be accepted is that this method is in demand. People want it, this is evident in situations where even the elderly refuse to take their medication so as to try and stop the suffering or when doctors are constantly being asked by patients, friends and family members to just pull the plug and ease ones pain even if it goes against the laws of the country or state.
Some of them choose to do this as they see the necessity behind it. Some doctors are even advocating for this practice.
Overall, death in some cases is compassionate and should be considered if it is necessary.
Pain and Suffering
Majority of patients who want physician related suicide are those who are in pain or depressed. Some physicians are not trained on how to deal with people with depression; this leaves the patients with little hope when they get sick. The patients believe that they only have two options to suffer or to die.
Trained physicians know how to deal with cases of depression and pain. Due to medical advancements treatments have been developed that ease the pain and different approaches of dealing with depression have been adapted that may go a long way in changing the mind of patients, making them opt for the option of living longer.
Patients right versus pain and suffering
Though this argument carries some weight, certain factors in relation to patients’ rights can still not be ignored. This argument does not have more weight over the latter. This is because factors like the case of the mercy argument have still not been dwelt on. Pain in some cases cannot be suppressed some extreme conditions are associated with immense pain that even the most effective drugs cannot always manage.
Even with the coping of pain and depression, some cases have very small chances of being cured. The best the patient can do is hope for miracle healing. These cases offer the patient nothing to look forward to in their lives. These bring about things such as pain and suffering that is recurrent, and the question of a compassionate death is still an option.
Either way even if there is no pain or depression some of these conditions require a lot of money. The medical bills because of the medical services, medicine and checkups are very high. Even the patients’ insurance cover may not be able to cover these costs. These bills in most cases even wipe out the patients savings completely.
This leaves a strain on the patients’ family and in most cases; the family members and friends have to chip in. This makes them strain in trying to cover all the expenses. The patient even though is not in pain may not want the people around him or her to suffer because of this hence the option of physician-assisted suicide to ease the peoples burden is chosen.
Conclusion
The patient should be the one to decide his or her fate as in the end it should boil down to ones right. The state and doctors should not be left with the task of dictating the life of a patient despite the pain, suffering and interests. The patients may have a variety of reasons that will lead him or her to opt for this option. The reasons are pain, suffering and the high costs realized because of trying to cope with the condition.
Though the argument that the possibility of suppressing pain and depression can help significantly in making the patients not to choose this option other factors such as the amount of pain, the lack of hope of a cure and the financial strains on the patients family and friends make this option less effective.
This option should however be practiced with caution, it should be the last resort after all the necessary options have been tried and no solution can be effective. Law from the unsafe implementation of this strategy should also regulate the physicians. Physician-assisted suicide should be legalized with no doubt. Its pros outweigh its cons and that is why different regions should consider this option for the general good.
References
Balkin, K. (2005). Assisted Suicide. Detroit, MI: Greenhaven press.
Engadhi, S. (2009). Assisted suicide. Detroit, MI: Green haven press.
Roleff, T. L. (1998). Suicide: Opposing viewpoints. San Diego, CA: Greenhaven press.