Introduction
Doctor-assisted suicide has been driving national controversy for decades, being a critical moral issue involving healthcare professionals and their patients. Some people might find this case morally wrong as one’s decision to end life violates its sanctity and sacredness. In contrast, others attribute these instances to autonomous and independent decisions made by suffering people.
Although the ethical egoist perspective approves of this act due to pursuing an individual’s happiness, social contract theory disapproves of it since it might threaten the broader community. Varying ethical theories provide different backgrounds for judging whether doctor-assisted euthanasia should be allowed. Still, the final considerations are made according to the professional code of conduct for medical specialists, which prohibits any infringement of one’s life.
Proponents of Doctor-Assisted Suicide
Assisted dying involves prescribing lethal substances to terminate severely ill patients’ lives. The public is supportive of this act as it ensures that people with unbearable pain stop suffering (Pentaris & Jacobs, 2022). This compassionate view strives for a better quality of life for all and eliminating others’ sufferings.
Another reason for the legalization of assisted suicide is respect for an individual’s autonomy, as people should decide by themselves when to end their lives (Velan et al., 2019). After these speculations, the Netherlands, Germany, and the US states of Colorado, Oregon, and Montana have legally allowed and regulated this practice. Proponents argue that assisted suicide respects human rights for personal choice and relief from suffering.
Opponents of Doctor-Assisted Suicide
Meanwhile, another group of people worries about the spread of doctor-assisted dying as it interferes with their moral judgment. According to these people, intentionally terminating one’s own life violates the life’s sanctity and inherent value, which might be based on religious assumptions. It also violates deontology principles, stating that one should never kill (Velan et al., 2019). Additionally, there is a fear of a slippery slope when others take advantage of this situation, so the cases of abuse and involuntary euthanasia increase. Hence, public opinion on this issue varies, making it more complex for governments to draw any conclusions on the case’s legalization.
Ethical Egoist Perspective
In order to investigate this moral dilemma, it is necessary to bring several ethical theories, such as the ethical egoist view. An ethical egoist claims that each person should seek their self-interest, so people should be allowed to do whatever they want, even if they pursue doctor-assisted suicide (Rachels & Rachels, 2022). Ethical egoists are proponents of this act as they justify their decision by relating it to personal autonomy.
If a person is self-determinant and wants to stop the tormenting mental or physical pain caused by their medical condition, they should receive help (Cipriani & Di Fiorino, 2019). The debates between loyalty to self and community are irrelevant for this scenario, as ethical egoists always prioritize their rights to decide on their lives. Ethical egoism makes individuals value their choices and lives as of supreme importance, meaning their actions align with their happiness without considering the broader social context.
Social Contract Perspective
Another critical theory for analysis is the social contract, which probably would oppose physician-assisted suicide due to its adverse effects on social stability. Social contract emphasizes the importance of rules, governing behavior, and a public-accepted rationale for morality (Rachels & Rachels, 2022). Hence, its theorists consider broader context since approval of assisted dying might undermine people’s trust in their community and social cohesion.
If one person intentionally commits doctor-assisted suicide, they might erode others’ values of life. This issue creates a conflict between personal and national obligations since the majority’s benefits and well-being outweigh the personal choice made by one agent to end their life. One is not allowed to choose this practice to ensure that others do not follow one’s example or become affected by this action. Therefore, social contract theorists challenge the need for doctor-assisted suicide to maintain existing social orders.
Professional Code of Ethics
The codes of medical ethics stress the principles of nonmaleficence and beneficence, which do not approve of doctor-assisted suicide. The American Medical Association (2016) states that this act is incompatible as the physicians should address the patient’s needs at the end of life as healers without holding any professional duties to terminate their lives. Although, understandably, some patients might want to avoid unbearable pain, doctors cannot help them end their lives but can provide appropriate comfort and pain control.
Meanwhile, nurses continue to promote patients’ well-being and compassionately assist them during palliative care (American Nurses Association, 2015). In this case, the professional duty of privacy and respect might interfere with the patient’s familial duties as the healthcare professionals should consider the decision’s impact on families. Physicians should maintain confidentiality while collaborating with family members, which might cause misunderstandings. Nevertheless, doctors should carefully examine their patients’ choices and their implications.
Conclusion
The recent moral dilemmas result in a paradigm shift when several ethical principles are utilized to make challenging medical decisions. One of them is doctor-assisted suicide, which challenges the moral principles of beneficence, autonomy, and nonmaleficence listed in the medical code of ethics. The decision to end one’s life might be a free initiative that brings more satisfaction, according to ethical egoist theory. However, it still might cause social resonance as it violates a person’s right to preserve their life. Terminating the lives of patients with severe illnesses upon their request should involve a nuanced comprehension of the situation and its possible consequences, so doctors should not be held responsible for one’s sanctity of life.
References
American Medical Association. (2016). Code of medical ethics. AMA. Web.
American Nurses Association. (2015). Code of ethics for nurses. ANA. Web.
Cipriani, G., & Di Fiorino, M. (2019). Euthanasia and other end of life in patients suffering from dementia. Legal Medicine, 40(1), 54-59. Web.
Pentaris, P., & Jacobs, L. (2022). UK public’s views and perceptions about the legalisation of assisted dying and assisted suicide. OMEGA-Journal of Death and Dying, 86(1), 203-217. Web.
Rachels, J., & Rachels, S. (2022). The elements of moral philosophy (10th Edition). McGraw-Hill Higher Education.
Velan, B., Ziv, A., Kaplan, G., Rubin, C., Connelly, Y., Karni, T., & Tal, O. (2019). Truth-telling and doctor-assisted death as perceived by Israeli physicians. BMC Medical Ethics, 20(1), 1-13. Web.