The world is far from perfect; however, people have made immense progress in the medical field, which now allows to prolong their lives, even at the expense of the quality of such existence. Some might agree that humans have reached the stage of development, which prompts socio-cultural and legal discussions of a choice for those facing a terminal illness to end their suffering through physician-assisted suicide. Ultra-liberal countries such as Canada, some European nations, and certain parts of the U.S. have already designed and implemented regulations regarding the legalization of euthanasia. However, the majority of the international community, particularly ultra-orthodox states in the Middle East, Africa, and Southeast Asia, remain the trend’s rigorous opponents. While the topic of aid-in-dying treatment is exceptionally controversial, it is crucial to discuss it in order to provide an ethical decision-making framework for similar issues in the future. The actual translation of the term “euthanasia” from Greek is “good death.” Physician-assisted suicide should be legalized in order to give individuals an opportunity to make their own choices, to ensure doctors’ upholding to the principles of autonomy, nonmaleficence, and beneficence, as well as to destigmatize terminal illness.
Making the process of assisted dying lawful safeguards a patient’s autonomy and ensures they have a right to self-determination. Every sleep-deprived medical student knows the principles of healthcare practice by heart. A doctor should provide their services following such concepts as nonmaleficence, beneficence, autonomy, and others. Legalizing euthanasia is an essential step forward in fully recognizing individual autonomy as the fundamental human value. If a person can refuse treatment or certain medications, they should be able to ask for voluntary end-of-life assistance. This is partially connected to the concept of “Die with Dignity,” which “might expand to embracing death out of “sense of fulfillment”” (Phatak and Phatak 2). Making a decision to end their own suffering and die is the ultimate reflection of an individual’s right to autonomy, which should be protected by euthanasia legislation.
When it comes specifically to the United States, freedom of choice is an inherently American principle, which makes the possibility of country-wide euthanasia legalization all the more crucial. For some, physician-assisted suicide is a malicious act of killing, being a part of a larger conspiracy aimed at reducing the world’s growing population. However, it is important to acknowledge that euthanasia is a choice, rather than a death sentence. A person does not simply wake up and choose to end their life. After a period of suffering, pain, mental health issues, and financial troubles, a terminally ill individual might contemplate the possibility of aid-in-dying treatment. Despite that, acquiring a prescription for lethal medication is often viewed as a safety net.
After going through tremendous amounts of stress worsened by extreme physical pain, it is relieving for those suffering from a terminal condition to have an option to end the struggle if they want to. People participating in pride parades and engaging in LGBT+ activism might not want to get married but they would like to have an opportunity to do so if they decide to. Every person should have a right to choose, especially being cornered in an extremely stressful and vulnerable position of suffering from a serious illness.
Euthanasia is a prime example of following the principles of nonmaleficence and beneficence, which medical professionals are required to uphold. The Hippocratic Oath of “do no harm” is rightfully recognized as the foundation of Western medicine (Quinn). It is curious that both the opponents and the proponents of assisted dying treatment use the vow in their arguments. On the one hand, medically supervised suicide goes against the idea that doctors should save, and not kill. However, on the other hand, healthcare practitioners should remain unbiased and free of personal assumptions in regards to what “harm” is. One might argue that to induce harm upon a person is to disregard their wishes, suffering, and pain by denying them the right to end their own life. Medical staff has to act in the patient’s best interest, which implies giving advice as well as informing but ultimately respecting an individual’s decision to ask for aid-in-dying treatment.
Physician-assisted suicide is a humane and compassionate act of relieving people of unnecessary suffering and pain. Each year, more than 2.3 million of Americans die, with around half of deaths having a distinct dying phase, which would potentially prompt patients to request euthanasia, according to Ezekiel J. Emanuel. Due to a number of exclusion factors, roughly a million are mentally competent enough to meet the requirements for receiving aid-in-dying treatment (Emanuel). According to Emanuel’s estimates, “of the 2.3 million Americans who die, approximately 5,000 to 25,000 patients might have a distinct dying process with significant and unremitting pain, desire euthanasia or PAS [physician-assisted suicide], and be competent to repeatedly request and consent to euthanasia” (633). Thus, it is crucial to refute the argument that legalizing assisted dying treatment would result in millions of deaths. Instead, it is clear that making the process lawful would ensure thousands of people do not have to suffer anymore.
Legalization of physician-assisted suicide is a complex process, which requires numerous regulations regarding the requirements for and the implications of the procedure or the lethal medication. It is crucial to acknowledge the opposition’s argument and recognize the opportunity euthanasia can give to abuse the most vulnerable populations. Prior to passing laws in regards to providing a terminally ill individual to have an option for physician-assisted suicide, there has to be a list of safeguards. Thus, legalizing aid-in-dying treatment always implies the creation of a specific regulatory framework. The most common safeguards include that “the patient must be terminally ill, the patient must be an adult, the patient must be mentally competent, the patient must be in severe pain, two independent physicians must be satisfied that the above conditions are present” (Chand). Therefore, a crucial factor in the efforts of euthanasia lobbyists and lawmakers should be the development of reliable pain and suffering assessment frameworks.
Physician-assisted suicide is an undeniably controversial topic, which gains more attention from the public the more countries start to legalize it. The only humane and compassionate way to help those suffering from terminal conditions and experiencing agonizing pain is to fight for their right to die with dignity. This reflects a current trend of reimagining the principles of beneficence and nonmaleficence in medical practice. Euthanasia ensures that a patient can make autonomous decisions and has the right to choose.
Works Cited
Chand, Kailash. Why We Should Make Euthanasia Legal. The Guardian, 2009, Web.
Emanuel, Ezekiel J. “What Is the Great Benefit of Legalizing Euthanasia or Physician-Assisted Suicide?” Ethics, vol. 109, no. 3, 1999, pp. 629-642. EBSCO, Web.
Phatak, Shantanu Ajay, and Ajay Gajanan Phatak. “Euthanasia: Past, Present and Future.” Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research, vol. 14, no. 11, 2020, pp. 1-3. Web.
Quinn, Mattie. “Conversations at the End: As the Right-to-die Movement Grows, More States Are Having the Discussions No One Likes to Have.” Governing, vol. 31, no. 5, 2018, pp. 46-49. Web.