The Right To Die Through Physician-Assisted Suicide

The Right to Die through Physician Assisted Suicide Name Institutional Affiliation The Right to Die through Physician Assisted Suicide The suffering that one endures in the process of death, especially where disease is the cause, can make one desire to die in order to escape the pain. Physician assisted suicide or PAS, as it is commonly referred to, is a different form of suicide. In PAS, a physician prescribes an overdose of drugs, which the patient then takes himself or herself, to induce death. This is such that the physician does not give the drugs directly to the patient. This phenomenon is commonly confused with Euthanasia, another form of suicide or “mercy killing”. In Euthanasia, a suffering patient is allowed to die in order to stop the suffering that they are undergoing (Emanuel et al., 2016). In euthanasia, contrary to PAS, the physician is the one administering the drugs. Physician assisted suicide should be supported not only in the USA, but across the world as a means of providing the terminally ill with an opportunity to die a painless and dignified death. Opposition to PAS The world over, PAS has received heavy criticism and intense rejection. This is because a vast majority of the population prefers being pro life to being against it. It is also a common belief among many individuals that one should die at their right time; the time when their Deity chooses. This has been the main reason fronted by a majority of those against physician assisted suicide (De Lima et al., 2017). These individuals pose quite a number of reasons as to why they vehemently oppose PAS. First of all, the majority argue that suicide is in itself wrong and even so for the ill. They hold the view that life is precious and God-given and hence no individual has the right to take the life of another. The majority argues that no individual can give him or herself life and so no individual can take the life of another or their own (Blackstone & Youngner, 2018). The fact that there are individuals who are willing to take their own lives is not only wrong but also unacceptable to the majority. They confer that especially for the sick; suicide cannot be an option (Radbruch et al., 2015). Just as suicide is wrong and prohibited for the healthy, so should it be for the sick. The ill suffer a great deal, especially when the disease in case is a terminal one. Many at times, these individuals suffering from terminal diseases wish to take their own lives as a measure to stop the suffering that they undergo (Sulmasy et al., 2018). This, however, is not acceptable to the opponents of this idea who feel that allowing individuals to be able to take their own lives is, in effect, allowing them to play God. Opponents of PAS also feel that allowing physician assisted suicide is totally incompatible with the healing goals that drive the field of medicine. Many of the individuals who want to end their lives are tired of all the pain and suffering that they are enduring. This forces many of them to ask their physicians to end their lives. However, it is illegal for a physician to end the life of a suffering patient, even in severe cases (Radbruch et al., 2015). The American Medical Association (AMA) argues that allowing physicians to end the lives of suffering patients digresses from the healing goals of medicine. The Hippocratic Oath, that sees physicians vow to protect life, is what guides the AMA into taking this stance (Blackstone & Youngner, 2018). To those in opposition to PAS, PAS only arises as an option in the absence of proper palliative care. The medical field has witnessed progress of leaps and bounds over the past few hundred years. This has resulted in the development of proper medicine and medical techniques that are capable of curing diseases, as well as, alleviating pain (Derse et al., 2018). This fact drives the majority to believe that proper palliative care for terminal patients is the key to foregoing PAS. They believe that the ability of modern medicine to alleviate even extreme pain should be employed to ease the pain that patients feel. This, they argue, will enable patients to die a peaceful, and more importantly, natural death (Breitbart et al., 2000). Instead of allowing physicians to end the lives of suffering patients, the society should invest more in quality palliative care that will make the lives of suffering patients bearable. According to the opposition as well as the AMA, death requests by patients are Prima Facie evidence of the poor care that the patients experience (Breitbart et al., 2000). The fact that a patient will resort to suicide is a pointer to the care and treatment that they receive. In a hospital or hospice in which patients are well taken care of, and their needs addressed, the requests for physician assisted suicide have been found to be significantly low (Sulmasy et al., 2018). This is a sharp contrast to the institutions where patients are poorly taken care of or neglected. The negligence of nursing staff to ailing patients drives many patients into seeing themselves as burdens on those around them. This plays a key role in the patient resorting to requesting for PAS. Support for PAS The phenomenon of physician assisted suicide has also been received with open arms in different parts around the world. As early as 1999, the state of Oregon in the USA had legalized PAS, albeit with a few guidelines that must be followed. It appears that support for PAS has been growing with Washington and Vermont jumping onto the ‘legalize PAS’ bandwagon. Among those of dissenting opinion to the majority, there are a number of reasons that make them support physician as...