Physician Assisted Suicide Should be Legal with Consent from the Dying

Name:
Tutor:
Course:
Date:
Physician Assisted Suicide Should Be Legal With Consent from the Dying
Introduction
Ethically, physician-assisted suicide can be compared to abortion. (Harris, Richard & Khanna 479). However, for a dying person to choose to escape unbearable suffering at the end of life, this is different. The physician has the duty to alleviate patients suffering as a way of justifying his action. Physician-assisted suicide has become a significant topic that is debatable, based on the argument that dying patients have the right to die with an assistance of physicians (Lewis 89). However, not everyone agrees with this statement because of religious and moral reasons. The main argument is about compassion and respect for the dying. Physicians are often divided over these issues because they cannot precisely describe relief from dying and killing. The main concern in this case mainly focuses on assisted suicide in relation to terminally ill patients; many terminally ill patients in their final stages of life have requested doctors to assist them in dying. This is because they are usually in great pain and according to them, the only hope lies on an assisted suicide (Lewis 87).
Arguments on Physician Assisted Suicide
The main purpose of physician-assisted suicide is to control pain, many people still oppose this view Experts argue that medicine is meant to alleviate pain for patients (Lewis 89).The question is why terminally ill patients have to seek permission from doctors and the state to be given medication that would alleviate pain. Other medical experts argue that terminally ill patients have the right to assisted suicide in situations where there are no cures. In supporting the sentiment, the experts argue that a dying patient and their immediate family member suffer great deal; the cost is sometimes too much for the patient family (Harris, Richard & Khanna 480).
The Legal Stand of Physician Assisted Suicide
According to the US Constitution, an individual have the right to decide how to live and how to die. According to legal experts, those who advocate for physician-assisted suicide ignore the constitution implications. (Harris, Richard & Khanna 480).Opposing physician-assisted suicide means violating the Constitution. In certain states like Oregon, close to 51 percent of voters supported the “death with dignity Act,” meaning that the law recognizes the need for terminally ill patients rights to end their suffering legally and painlessly by allowing doctors to prescribe a lethal dose. Despite the majority decision in Oregon, the law on physician-assisted suicide has been under attack by religious leaders arguing that people have the right to live rather than the right to die (Harris, Richard & Khanna 481). According to the constitution, ‘individual right’ means the right to direct their course of entire lives by taking actions that one feels necessary for his happiness. If one determines that he is no longer able to achieve his values and faces misery, no one may force him to act (Harris, Richard & Khanna 481).
The debate concerning the legalization of physician-assisted suicide is further stimulated by reports of specific cases especially in America. Some of the common cases include a retired pathologist Dr, Jack Kevorkian who assisted more than hundred people commit suicide in Michigan (Harris, Richard & Khanna 481). Dr, Jack Kevorkian case captured the attention of many people increasing the public awareness of the extent and the effects of physician-assisted suicide. Like the United State, in other countries like Canada, there have been publicized trials of medical practitioners assisting patients to commit suicide. Most people convicted are usually charged with attempted murder rather than assisted suicide (Harris, Richard & Khanna 481).
In addition, the legalization debate is further stimulated by emotional pleas from individual suffering from terminal illnesses. Several people have petitioned the courts declaring that by prohibiting assisted suicide it violates their constitutional right to life, liberty, and security
Individuals and organizations argument in terms of rights as described by the constitution can be interpreted differently. According to Margaret Pabst, there are three different ways of viewing right to suicide (Sullivan 19). First, as a liberty right, meaning an individual is free to commit suicide, the second is the right to noninterference, no one has a duty to assist an individual with suicide. The third view of rights according to Margaret Pabst is positive right, having a duty to assist an individual with suicide. Most of constitutional rights are often formulated in terms of negative liberty rights or non-interference, other than the positive rights. Accordingly, physicians involved in constitutional cases they insist on having the right to assist patients commit suicide as permitted by the constitution (Sullivan 19).
It could be argued that a doctor’s fundamental duty is to alleviate any form of suffering in the best interest of the patient. Avoidance of pain explains why assisting a dying patient is necessary and...