The Claim: Physician-Assisted Suicide should be legal and available to those who choose to use it.
As stated by the American Medical Association, physician-assisted suicide happens when a physician assists in a patient’s death by furnishing them with the means of instruction that will enable them to enact a life-ending act. The physicians’ core values of fidelity postulate that patients possess the right to decline treatment, which includes also includes life-prolonging treatment, and as such, every patient’s liberty of self-determination should be valued.
The counter-argument to this claim is that physician-assisted suicide should not be made legal because allowing this practice would lead to a downward spiral in the medical industry, a phenomenon referred to as ‘the slippery slope.’ And instead, they propose that hospitals should focus on improving the quality and accessibility of hospice and palliative care as a means of discouraging people from looking for the physician-assisted suicide alternative.
The sources advancing this claim are the medical professionals who believe that physician-assisted suicide goes against their moral integrity and responsibility for being healers. According to (Baumann and Schaber, 2017), this section of doctors suggested that when we advance the assertion that patients hold the right to die. It means we are imposing on the practitioners the obligation to kill, which contradicts their code of conduct that obligates them to heal. These doctors opposing the claim have also invoked the Hippocratic Oath, which states, “Do no harm.”
The other groups interested in this case are the religious community. Major religions, including Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, and Buddhism, are opposed to physician-assisted suicide based on the premise that life is sacred. Only God should determine when life ends because He is the sole giver of that life. The other argument that these parties have made against physician-assisted suicide is that it has cheapened the worth of human life and takes away the redemptive quality of suffering. The government’s law enforcement agencies are also interested in how physician-assisted suicide will be regulated to ensure that there are checks and controls around the exercise. The common apprehension in public is when there are no safeguards, the chances of unscrupulous parties who would coerce patients to involuntary medical aided death for their gain like in organ harvesting (Simmons, 2018).
- The Types of Information about Physician-Assisted Suicide
Physician-assisted suicide has become one area where physicians are in a dilemma between upholding the code of conduct within their profession, which obliges them to be healers or respecting the patient’s rights of self-determination. Many physicians have come out to strongly oppose this practice saying it violates their ethical and moral standards. However, another faction of the physicians has come out in support of the procedure, claiming that they are mandated to alleviate suffering and pain.
When we consider the analogy that each patient has the right to live, then using this school of thought, we can establish that patients retain the right to die. Battin (2017) talks about patients’ rights to refuse treatment, which implies that they can choose the alternative of medical aid in dying. Patients who want this option have already established that their prognosis shows their symptoms are unmanageable and, therefore, would like to have some form of control over their deaths. This school of thought is also called controlling their end of life story where the patients feel that they and their family members should not go through the emotional stress that comes with the managing of a condition that is not treatable.
In the United States, the practice has been legalized in the following states; Oregon, which permitted the Death with Dignity Act in 1997 through a general election. Montana and Washington followed suit in 2009 through a ruling that was made by the Supreme Court. Vermont bill known as the Patient Choice and Control at End of Life Act came into action in 2013. California approved the End of Life Option Act in 2015. Colorado’s End of Life Options Act started operating in 2016. Then in 2017 the law was passed in the District of Columbia. Hawaii’s bill termed “Our Care, Our Choice Act” took effect in 2018. New Jersey and Maine are the latest states to assent to the bill that legalizes physician-assisted suicide practice in 2019. The methods used in the exercise vary in every state, but the law recommends that it should involve a prescription form filled by a licensed physician who is approved by the state. The bill also propagates the use of physician-assisted death (PAD) as opposed to suicide when describing the act. According to a research that seeks to establish the category of patients that sought the service cancer patients topped the list, and then followed by patients with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS). Statistics of Oregon from 1998 to 2006 indicate 70% of the patients who chose this option had cancer, while 7% had ALS.
When I consider the background information in evaluating the viability of this claim, I am certain it does not conflict with my observation because the information that I have collected about physician-assisted suicide sufficiently backs-up the claim (Battin 2015).
- Rhetoric and Fallacies used concerning this claim.
The first fallacy around physician-assisted suicide postulates that improved palliative and hospice care will discourage patients from pursuing the option. As advanced by Clark (2017), it is a wrong ideology because some medical conditions result in persistent and untreatable suffering, which cannot be managed even with the best end-of-life care.
The other rhetoric that is being perpetuated is the moral issues around the procedure. As claimed by Moore, Parker, Rosenstand, and Silvers (2015) the deontological arguments that are raised about the practice touch on the worth of human life, with some physicians stating the act is against their responsibility as healers with the flip side citing the importance of moral autonomy and self-determination.
Some parties also claim that persons who seek physician-assisted suicide are clinically depressed. This assertion is not true because the law requires that the mental capacity of every patient who wants to pursue this option is mentally evaluated by a certified psychiatrist to ensure they are of sound mind and under no undue influence. The process also involves other medical practitioners who are proficient in the physician-assisted field and other parties to act as witnesses.
The slippery slope is another rhetoric that has been used with this claim. Those parties that oppose physician-assisted suicide claim that making the practice legal will lead to social degradation. The fear is that the exercise might lead to other illegal practices such as involuntary euthanasia in disguising physician-assisted suicide.
- Scientific Findings of Physician-Assisted Suicide.
A report on the practice indicates that 60%percent of physicians in the United States believe it should be legalized. These physicians felt they must be given proper training around the method to ensure they can execute the mandate proficiently. “It is clear from these responses that physicians think that patients should have the option to choose PAS; however, doctors would be unwilling to perform it because it is outside the scope of their practice. On the one hand, this unwillingness could be due to a lack of training or expertise concerning PAS. Perhaps if some of these physicians had specific training in performing PAS, they would be more willing to perform it” (Hetzler, Nie, Zhou, and Dugdale, 2019).
In another similar study, a professor in psychiatry, Linda Ganzini, conducted research which established that this option gives the patients some form of control in their death. Oregon State statistics also indicated that patients preferred dying at the comfort of their homes as opposed to hospitals.
The best way to assess the probabilities of this is to protect it from abuse by ensuring there are stringent laws in place. Once proper safeguards have been established, the public will surely change their attitudes towards the claim. Another way is to tutor more physicians in the field of assisted dying to improve their skills and expertise in the area because most of the medical practitioners sighted lack of knowledge as the reason for their reluctance to perform the work.
Proper screening of the patients is also very crucial to establish their condition. An appropriate diagnosis of the patient should be made in the presence of witnesses and more qualified medical personnel to confirm the viability of a patient’s request for physician-assisted suicide.
Conclusion
Every patient should be accorded the right of control over their life circumstances. Those parties who vehemently oppose this practice from a theoretical standpoint lack the first-hand experience of the patients who undergo severe pain. Opening up room for patients and doctors to discuss the various options available for patients helps the physicians to establish the right kind of quality care to administer. Those parties who oppose physician-assisted suicide in a bid to advocate for accessible, quality hospice and palliative care need to realize that some forms of anguish cannot be treated with that kind of attention. Also, only the patients know the level of pain they experience, meaning they are in a better position to pick an option that best suits them. Judgment impairment of patients and fear of other errors that might occur can be mitigated through proper regulation and standardization measures to protect the parties involved.