Legalization of Medically-Induced Suicide

Topic: Suicide Words: 1133 Pages: 3

Banner, D., Schiller, C. J., & Freeman, S. (2019). Medical assistance in dying: A political issue for nurses and nursing in Canada. Nursing Philosophy, 20(4), 1-7. Web.

This article discusses the personal, political, and professional ramifications of the 2015 legalization of Medical Assistance in Dying (MAiD) in Canada for nurses. While most interviewed nurses viewed MAiD as a natural extension of their professional duties, many complained about legal role confusion, associated stigma, limited professional support, and ethical and moral distress. The authors conclude that more research needs to be conducted on this topic and that provincial and territorial regulatory bodies need to outline clear and cohesive nursing guidelines for MAiD. This is a trustworthy source written by nursing professors that was published in a peer-reviewed academic journal. Although it sometimes reads as more of a call to action than a comprehensive academic analysis, it is still an important source highlighting the implications of physician-assisted suicide for an oft-overlooked group.

Borovecki, A., Curkovic, M., Nikodem, K., Oreskovic, S., Novak, M., Rubic, F., Vukovic, J., Spoljar, D., Gordijn, B., & Gastmans, C. (2022). Attitudes about withholding or withdrawing life-prolonging treatment, euthanasia, assisted suicide, and physician-assisted suicide: a cross-sectional survey among the general public in Croatia. BMC Medical Ethics, 23(13), 1-16. Web.

In this article, the authors explore public attitudes regarding euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide in Croatia. Furthermore, they examine how these attitudes are linked to sociodemographic characteristics, religion, political orientation, personal experiences with death, and other relevant factors. A descriptive cross-sectional survey study of 1203 adult citizens of Croatia was conducted, and it was found that supporting euthanasia was correlated with higher levels of education and a more liberal worldview. This is a credible source published in a peer-reviewed academic journal as part of a sociological project funded by the Croatian Science Foundation. While this is a useful insight into the general population’s attitudes towards physician-assisted suicide, the results are not generalizable since the research was limited to Croatia.

Dierickx, S., Onwuteaka-Philipsen, B., Penders, Y., Cohen, J., van der Heide, A., Puhan, M. A., Ziegler, S., Bosshard, G., Deliens, L., & Chambaere, K. (2020). Commonalities and differences in legal euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide in three countries: a population-level comparison. International Journal of Public Health, 65(1), 65-73. Web.

This article compares the prevalence and characteristics of E/PAS in three countries on a population level: the Flanders region of Belgium, the Netherlands, and Switzerland. Follow-up mortality surveys were sent to a random sample of physicians that likely participated in E/PAS based on the underlying cause of death indicated on their patients’ death certificates. There were various differences that the authors conclude were based on the legal framework of E/PAS and cultural factors in each country. This is a reliable source written by long-time professionals in end-of-life research, public health, geriatric care, and biostatistics. It is a relevant source that demonstrates the variability of E/PAS based on legal and cultural contexts.

Kelly, B., Handley, T., Kissane, D., Vamos, M., & Attia, J. (2020). “An indelible mark” the response to participation in euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide among doctors: A review of research findings. Palliative & Supportive Care, 18(1), 82-88. Web.

This is a review of nine quantitative and qualitative research papers published between 1980 and 2018 focused on the impact of participation in euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide (E/PAS) on clinicians. Approximately 30-50% of doctors found satisfaction in fulfilling the patient’s request despite the accompanying emotional burden, and 15-20% felt a significant, ongoing adverse personal impact. The authors conclude that participation in E/PAS has a substantial short-term and long-term emotional impact, and it is necessary to support clinicians as they navigate the challenges of non-physical suffering. This is a trustworthy source published in a peer-reviewed academic journal by experts in medicine and psychology. It is a useful source for readers seeking to understand the impact of E/PAS on doctors.

Rosenberg, L. J., Butler, J. M., Caprio, A. J., Rhodes, R. L., Braun, U. K., Vitale, C. A., Telonidis, J., Vyjeyanthi, S., Periyakoil, S., & Farrell, T. W. (2020). Results from a survey of American Geriatrics Society members’ views on physician‐assisted suicide. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 68(1), 23-30. Web.

This article is about an E/PAS survey distributed to 1488 randomly selected members of the American Geriatrics Society (AGS), a majority of whom were seasoned geriatrics healthcare professionals. A total of 369 responses were received, with 52% opposed and 47% in favor of legalization, although both groups expressed concern about groups with limited decisional capacity. The authors conclude that terminally ill and vulnerable older adults should be included in the ethical, legal, and policy discussions regarding E/PAS. It is a credible source since it was written by professors of medicine and palliative care. Although the small self-selected sample size limits the study, it is still a valuable insight into how AGS members view E/PAS.

Sprung, C. L., Somerville, M. A., Radbruch, L., Collet, N. S., Duttge, G., Piva, J. P., Antonelli, M., Sulmasy, D. P., Lemmens, W., & Wesley, E. E. (2018). Physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia: emerging issues from a global perspective. Journal of Palliative Care, 33(4), 197-203. Web.

This article articulates why physicians should not be involved in E/PAS: slippery slopes, inadequate palliative care, the transgression of medical professionalism, and differences between killing to relieve suffering and allowing natural death. The most compelling argument is that despite existing safeguards, 1.7% of all deaths in the Flanders region of Belgium and 0.2% of all deaths in the Netherlands are administered without patient consent. The authors conclude that E/PAS does not qualify as medical treatment and should never be performed by physicians; a more adequate solution to relieve suffering is improving palliative care and addressing social causes. This is a credible, peer-reviewed article published by long-time medical professionals and experts in bioethics. This useful source provides real-life examples of why E/PAS should not be legalized or supported by medical organizations.

Sulmasy, D. P., Finlay, I., Fitzgerald, F., Foley, K., Payne, R., & Siegler, M. (2018). Physician-assisted suicide: why neutrality by organized medicine is neither neutral nor appropriate. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 33(8), 1394-1399. Web.

The authors discuss the arguments in favor of E/PAS and the arguments against legalization and conclude that organized medicine should continue to oppose the practice. A patient’s autonomy is too relational and subjective to justify E/PAS, physicians are unqualified to address existential distress, and the facilitation of suicide contradicts the central meaning of medicine, which is healing. They conclude that doctors and professional medical organizations have an ethical responsibility to take a public stance against E/PAS independently of the state, the market, and public opinion. This is a credible source written by established bioethics and medical philosophy professors. It is a relevant source about the ethical implications of E/PAS for the general medical profession and community.

References

Banner, D., Schiller, C. J., & Freeman, S. (2019). Medical assistance in dying: A political issue for nurses and nursing in Canada. Nursing Philosophy, 20(4), 1-7. Web.