Introduction
Do life and death begin and end with an individual, God, or medical practitioners? The discussion on medically assisted suicide, MAS, has been taking unprecedented directions over the last few years, making it a controversial legal and ethical issue. According to the ProCon organization (2022), 66.3% of patients used physician-prescribed drugs to end their lives between 1998 and 2017. 63.1% of these patients had cancer, 49.3% were female, while 50.7% were male (ProCon.org., 2022). The reasons for seeking MAS vary among people, but debilitation is the most common during the end of life. Therefore, MAS should be legal and easily accessible because some health conditions diminish people’s ability to enjoy life due to pain and the low quality of life and take away their motivation to fight.
Discussion
Legalizing MAS eliminates the ethical and legal complexities that the issue arouses, making it easier for health practitioners to provide the services more efficiently. Although caring for the sick falls within the healthcare professionals’ domain and scope of practice, specific actions are guided by the law and professional ethics. Despite being a natural occurrence, death and dying are embedded within the social, political, and cultural systems (Banner, Schiller & Freeman, 2019). These systems can potentially complicate rendering the MAS services because of the professional ethics that bind care providers. Such complexities are bound to reduce the effectiveness with which the practitioners deliver the MAS service, as the patient requests undergo rigorous evaluations by courts before they are granted. Research evidence proves that while a section of care providers are opposed to the practice, a significant number feel comfortable when they believe the needs of the patients are met (Kelly et al., 2020). Therefore, legalizing MAS would make it easier for doctors to cope with the requests and absolve them of possible guilt.
Research evidence proves that legality encourages new modes of care for palliative care patients. In a landmark ruling in 2015, the Canadian Supreme Court passed a law on a national framework for the Medical Assistance in Dying (MAiD) (Banner, Schiller & Freeman, 2019). In the absence of such regulatory measures, standardized and acceptable care for administering MAS is lacking, predisposing the patients to poor quality. In response, most regulatory bodies and provincial and territorial governments embarked on creating practice-specific policies and procedures (Banner, Schiller & Freeman, 2019). This response shows that legalizing MAS can positively impact policies and procedures that regulate practices, improve patient satisfaction and health outcomes and reduce ineffectiveness.
However, critics of the practice argue that establishing such procedures and policies paves the way for more complex issues, particularly for incapacitated patients who cannot communicate their preferences regarding health. Emergencies happen, leaving the victims in a precarious state with no ability to communicate their health wishes. In such instances, the decision lies with the close family members, who may not agree with each other. Critics also argue that placing the burden of such decisions on anyone else other than the bearer is ethically wrong. However, in the event of terminal illnesses, patients can leave advanced wills stating their desires during incapacitation.
Medically assisted suicide should also be legalized and easily accessible because some terminal illnesses diminish a patient’s ability to enjoy life. Many patients who seek MAS services are terminally ill and usually on palliative care. ProCon.org. (2022) reported that 63.1% of patients requesting MAS between 1998 and 2017 had terminal cancer. For most of these patients, care involves managing the pain and providing a comfortable end of life rather than recovery. Therefore, most invalids have already made peace with the concept of death at this point and find it easy to accept medically assisted suicide. A study by Rosenberg et al. (2020) revealed that 38.1% were open to medically assisted suicide for dying individuals experiencing extreme pain and suffering, while 37.8% did not agree with the concept but concurred that respecting the decisions of the terminally ill is crucial. Although the majority disagreed with MAS, the healthcare sectors worldwide must implement regulations in readiness for the practice because trends indicate that more people have become more agreeable to it.
Although MAS can help relieve suffering and pain that most patients experience at their end-of-life, critics contend that it can adversely affect safeguards for vulnerable populations. As a result, they may not be in the best position to make decisions about life and death. According to Rosenberg et al. (2020), there is a need for legal, ethical, and policy discussions regarding safeguards when responding to the requests of the vulnerable. Therefore, there is a need for more explicit policies that consider the patient’s mental and emotional health before granting MAS requests.
Conclusion
Medically assisted suicide is a highly controversial subject that attracts many emotions in the political, social, and cultural arenas. Although the practice is legal in a few countries, it remains illegal in others, complicating the health practitioners’ efforts to observe equality and respect patients’ autonomy. Legalizing the practice would encourage standardization of policies and procedures regulating MAS, ensuring equality and quality of care. Although critics argue that legalizing MAS would compromise the vulnerable people’s ability to make their own decisions, the law is available to govern cases where the patient is incapacitated.
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.
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.
ProCon.org. (2022). State-by-state physician-assisted suicide statistics. Web.
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.