Assisted suicide vs. preservation of life

Assisted suicide vs. Preservation of life
Name
Institution
Introduction
For a long time, many people have fought for the opportunity and right of calling it quits from living in a dignified manner, assisted by health professionals, under their own times. People who have suffered debilitating injuries and other terminal illnesses that have adversely affected the quality of life have sought to protect health practitioners who chose to help them in their final step in life. In many states and counties, PAS (Physician Assisted Suicide) and other forms of assisted death are illegal, with various people being prosecuted for assisting gravely ill patients in ending their suffering.
With healthcare personnel being governed by various legal and ethical that prioritizes preservation of life, the debate has currently divided opinion in many aspects of life, ranging from the general public, legislators, and health care professionals, with both proponents and their opponents, both conducting in-depth research into the matter. This research paper seeks to establish whether a terminally ill patient has the right to choose to end their life with assistance from their physician. Furthermore, the research will explore various legal, ethical and religious opinions on the sensitive matter.
A case for assisted suicide
Right to die
On June 11, 1985, a young woman was taken to hospital for overdosing on a cocktail of assorted drugs and liquor, all while under a diet that had resulted in her not eating for a few day prior.

Her brain activity had slowed down, and she was losing color. Emergency responders to the scene had unsuccessfully tried to resuscitate her using various means. After dropping into a persistent vegetative state, her parents sought to disconnect her from her life support, claiming that their daughter had a right to determine whether she wanted to live and die, and as her guardian, the had the right to decide in the absence of her opinion. They argued that, according to their Catholic faith, there is no need for extraordinary means to be employed in the attempt to save her. Her parents cited a declaration by Pope Pius XII, asking the court to order her ventilator removed. Thus, Karen Quinlan would become a symbol of the struggle for the right to die to be considered a fundamental human right, recognized by the constitutions (Balkin 2005).
For many biological organisms, death is inevitable, due to various factors, ranging from accidents, disease, and ultimately cellular degradation. However, humanity has the unique ability to determine the quality of life a person will lead and whether it is time to end it due to factors that may reduce or alter the quality of life they lead. Proponents of voluntary euthanasia, argue that every person has the right to determine how to live or die, more so in cases where the quality of life has degraded to the point of irreversibility (Balkin 2005). Furthermore, they argue that it is not ethical for a medical professional who is required to enhance a person’s life, to administer life-prolonging medication that will otherwise prolong patient suffering. Therefore, it is impractical for a doctor to prolong patient suffering on account of preserving their life, which supporters of doctor-assisted suicide argue is likely to end soon and devoid of meaning and happiness for the patient and loved ones (Weisstub 2015).
In various states and countries globally, the right to die is not recognized, with state interest preventing voluntary euthanasia. Currently, debate rages in the medical and palliative care field whether the right to die applies to all competent adults. For instance, the United States Congress enacted the Patient Self-Determination Act of 1991, which allows elderly patients along with the terminally ill to refuse potentially life-saving treatment in order to shorten their suffering by dying. Furthermore, a court in Montana, concluded that the right to die is an unalienable right to patients with terminal illnesses, while Bioethics professor and suicide proponent, Ludwig Minelli noted that all knowledgeable people had the right to put an end to their lives and that the option of death was a mere test of the level of freedom in the society as a whole (Balkin 2005).
Oregon state became one of the first states to acknowledge the right of a person to die, more so for those who were suffering from chronic diseases that provided more of anguish and pain than a comfortable living. This brought about the need for the critically ill to be assisted in passing on as they had come to accept that their time in the world had come to an end. Also, the Oregon voters decided to pass the “ Death with Dignity Act” in 1994, which enabled citizens who were suffering from severe diseases to be lessened their time with six months through the use of lethal drugs prescribed by a physician(Weisstub 2015). Furthermore, the Oregon Right to Die Political Action Committee ensured the inclusion of stringent measures to combat misuse. For instance, the legislation required for the patient to provide to oral and one written requests, with counseling recommended in the case of suspected mental health issues. Other states in the U.S have implemented or are debating allowing terminally ill patients to access government funded lethal drugs and various guidelines that outline the due process for assisted suicide. For instance, in 2015, California has recently begun implementing the legislature for legal assisted suicide (Weisstub 2015).
Globally, voluntary euthanasia is slowly gaining ground with many countries engaged is serious debate regarding the right of a person over their own life and body. Furthermore, various lobby groups such as Dignity in Death of England and Exit from Scotland, have succeeded in getting legal frameworks for assisted dying established. Furthermore, various companies are taking advantage of restrictive companies in numerous jurisdictions worldwide to make money by assisting the infirm and terminally ill end their life as they see fit. One such company is Dignitas of Switzerland, a country that has specific rules governing the assisted suicide of the terminally ill. However, the country has been accused of allowing who are “tired of life” to commit suicide, with research noting that up to 25% of the assisted suicides in Switzerland are mentally ill patients. One prominent example is a British teacher who ended her life due to frustration with the modern techno-savvy world (Balkin 2005).
On the other hand, opponents of the right to die, cite various issues that hamper safe assisted dying. For instance, religion has been cited as an influential factor for many people. For instance, the Catholic Church has termed any form of ill intentions towards human life that can lead to death as unholy. Despite acknowledging that the decision of one’s life and death are personal, the Church notes that “God is the creator and author of all life” and therefore is the sole judge of life and death. Therefore, the belief system teaches its followers that suicide is a contravention of the Ten Commandments, the fourth one more so since it states that “thou shall not kill.” Finally, the church argues that by assisting a suicide, a doctor or family member who assists a person commit suicide, despite their suffering and personal wishes is sinning by not “loving their neighbor” (Balkin 2005).
Other world religions such as Judaism consider preservation of life to be a great value. Despite their holy texts contain a few instances of suicide and assisted dying; various rabbis have opposed Physician Assisted dying for the terminally sick, even when they are in excruciating pain. Along with other cults and religions such as Islam and Mormonism, there is widespread opposition to suicide, euthanasia and any form of voluntary death (Balkin 2005).
However, few religions recognize the sole ownership of a person’s life and body. For example, the Unitarian Universalists passed a resolution in 1988 that advocated for the self-realization and will to die and the protection from criminal punishment to those who have taken it upon themselves to assist the critically ill to put an end to their suffering. (Balkin 2005). In fact, Hinduism is the only major religion that agrees to suicide. However, the conditions that need to be met are stringent, with starvation to death being considered as the best way to kill oneself (Balkin 2005).
Other factors that have been cited in opposition to Physician-Assisted Suicide include medical mistakes such as misdiagnosis and abuse of such regulation. For instance, various groups theorize that malicious caregivers may wrongly influence patients and healthcare givers to euthanize terminally ill patients who may be costly for the family, both emotionally and financially (Balkin 2005). Furthermore, opponents have theorized that vulnerable populations such as the disabled, racially marginalized communities and other vulnerable groups may be taken advantage off and placed under duress in their decision making regarding assisted dying. However, proponents note that various legal frameworks are available to eliminate the possibilities of human error and undue influence on the patient. The various pro-assisted suicide lobbies cite Oregon as a successful example of well-regulated and efficient state mandated patient Physician Assisted Suicide (Balkin 2005).
Proponents of Pas argue that, in the absence of well-organized, patient oriented procedures, individuals are exposed to other unsafe and unethical practices such as hired help and family assistance. They further state that, in the United States, due to lack of proper legislation, doctors often have no choice that to witness the long drawn out suffering of their patients. Furthermore, they posit that PAS offers individuals and their families, the ability to remember their loved ones as they see fit and depart on their own terms (Balkin 2005).
Medical Ethics
For many health practitioners, the difficulties encountered in assisting a patient end their lives originate from the various codes of ethics and conduct which is part and parcel of their vital line of work. The medical profession, which is ancient, has over the centuries developed various codes of conduct that aim to revive and improve the health of the sick. Therefore, for many doctors around the world, the ending of a human life is not in line with their code of conduct which guides them not to provide any harmful medicine to anyone either asked upon or through their recommendation and prescription. (Veatch 1997). However, proponents of assisted suicide argue that many of these terminal patients have a few moments left in life, which are mostly painful for all involved. The suffering of the patients dying from debilitating injuries from accidents and illnesses such as Alzheimer’s, various cancers and AIDS, has a deep and devastating impact on the people close-by (Balkin 2005).
Proponents of PAS argue that the various legislation and codes of conduct that govern medical ethics are not set in stone, and they have been previously changed in order to reflect on the times. For instance, they cite the repealing of the section that opposed to women working as health care givers as a necessary and beneficial example (Veatch 1997). Furthermore, they argue that the modern version that is widely adopted is subject to various changes in order to ensure the comfort and benefit of a patient. Balkin states that therefore it is unethical for a doctor to deny a patient’s wish to depart from their current suffering (Balkin 2005). While preservation of life is paramount, supporters argue that in some cases, severely injured or terminally ill people have a short, painful existence that is devoid of any happiness for all parties involved. Therefore, it is futile to employ any extraordinary means to the same unwanted end.
Opponents of PAS (Physician Assisted Suicide) argue that doctors are bound by other international agreements such as the International Code of Ethics and the Statement of Marbella. These internationally binding guidelines entreat all medical personnel to show ethical behavior in their daily medical practices as they are bound to them when offering guidance or even therapy to their patients and also people (Balkin 2005). Furthermore, it is argued that health practitioners are responsible for the preservation of a patient’s life and that nothing given to the patient should harm or kill them.
However, proponents posit that physicians should put their expertise in the profession for the well-being of others in the society and they state that assisting a patient end their suffering is part of that benefit (Balkin 2005). Therefore, it is unethical for a doctor to forcefully administer a patient with life preserving medication against their will despite knowing the consequences. By swearing to protect and treat their patients from any harm, doctors are therefore bound to provide any advice that may alleviate patient suffering (Veatch 1997). Balkin argues that In order to prevent malicious diagnosis and advice, authorities should implement various frameworks to ensure that patient rights to self-determination are protected from any harm by medical providers, such as the successful case of Oregon (Balkin 2005).
In the end, it is paramount for the wishes of an individual in regards to self-determination to be considered in the face of great suffering. Many constitutions globally, including the United States’, provide for the right of choice, despite vested state interest. Furthermore, it is essential for extraordinary means to be undertaken in the preservation of human life. However, it is imperative that governments realize the need for Physician Assisted Suicide legislation to ensure that patient wishes are accurately and independently ascertained before being implemented in a safe and beneficial manner.
References
Balkin, K. (2005). Assisted suicide. Detroit: Greenhaven Press.
Veatch, R. M. (1997). Medical ethics. Sudbury, Mass: Jones and Bartlett Publishers.
Weisstub, D. N. (October 01, 2015). “The right to live and the right to die.” Ethics, Medicine and Public Health, 1, 4, 416-417.