Introduction
Physician-assisted suicide is one of the issues that characterize provision of health care in the contemporary world. The practice is very common among patients who choose to take their lives with the help of a physician (Battin, Rhodes, & Silvers, 2004). Physician-assisted is closely related to euthanasia in terms of the way someone dies. In physician-assisted suicide, a doctor provides the necessary means for committing suicide, and then the patient performs the act. In the case of euthanasia, the physician provides a painless intervention to a patient as an act of mercy geared towards relieving them from pain and suffering (Kelly, 2006).
Legal experts argue that physician-assisted suicide often happens with the full knowledge of a doctor and their patient. It is a highly significant topic that attracts a lot of interest and opinions from different people in society. This issue has led to the development of two opposing factions. One advocates for legalization of the right to assisted suicide, while the other one opposes and describes it as an unethical act (Battin et al., 2004).
This debate is often guided by moral and religious elements that define morality. Supporters of physician-assisted suicide argue that the reasons behind their support are guided by the need to show sympathy towards dying people. This issue has also created a huge division among physicians. Some of them belief that this practice helps to relieve the pain of a dying person, while others believe it is not professionally right (Kelly, 2006).
One of the biggest concerns about the legal and moral basis of physician-assisted suicide is cases involving terminally ill people. Most of these people live a painful life, and consider this practice as the best option for them to end their agony (Snyder & Caplan, 2012). Although physician-assisted suicide is not a new phenomenon, it continues to attract negative remarks from people that believe in the value of life.
Discussion
The controversy surrounding the concept of physician-assisted suicide touches on the legal, moral, religious, ethical, and social provisions that define murder. Studies have established that most physicians receive a request to aid suicide from a patient at least once in their career (Battin et al., 2004).
However, physicians are allowed to go ahead with such requests only under jurisdictions that legalize its dissemination. Currently, there are only three states that have legalized physician-assisted suicide in the United States. These states are Vermont, Washington, and Oregon (Kelly, 2006).
Reports indicate that other states are making considerations on whether to legalize physician-assisted suicide despite the ethical controversy surrounding it. Physician-assisted suicide is common among terminally ill people or those that have a medical report showing that they will die within a period of not more than six months (Snyder & Caplan, 2012). There are no specific ways of undertaking physician-assisted suicide, although a patient should always forward their request to a licensed doctor.
Statistics indicate that the number of annual deaths happening as a result of physician-assisted suicide has increased a lot over the last couple of years (Battin et al., 2004). A report released in 2013 showed that more than 700 deaths had been reported across the three American states where physician-assisted suicide is legal (Snyder & Caplan, 2012). In Washington D.C. the number is slightly lower with just 525 reported deaths since the legalization of the practice in 2009. Some of the countries that have legalized physician-assisted suicide include Netherlands, Switzerland, and Luxembourg (Snyder & Caplan, 2012). However, some countries such as France, Belgium, and Colombia allow euthanasia, albeit with some conditions.
Different types of euthanasia
According to health experts, euthanasia is a medical practice in which a physician participates in killing someone suffering from an incurable illness. There are different types of euthanasia that are used to kill terminally ill patients. First, there is active and passive euthanasia (Battin et al., 2004). Active euthanasia involves a physician who causes death to a patient deliberately, while passive euthanasia entails a doctor who kills a patient indirectly by abandoning them. A good example of active euthanasia is prescribing an overdose to a patient. An example of passive euthanasia is when a doctor withdraws treatment to a patient.
Second, there is voluntary and involuntary euthanasia (Kelly, 2006). Voluntary euthanasia involves a situation where a patient asks a physician to help them die. Involuntary euthanasia involves a situation in which someone makes a decision to die on behalf of a terminally ill patient who cannot choose whether to die or live because of factors such as age, mental stability, legal compliance, and intelligence levels. In most cases, this type of death is classified as murder because it results in death of someone who could have chosen to live if they were in a position to make the decision (Kelly, 2006).
Third, there is indirect euthanasia that involves situations where a doctor facilitates the death of a patient by prescribing treatment, whose side effects kill the patient (Battin et al., 2004). Legal experts argue that this form of euthanasia is often not classified as unethical or immoral because the intention of the physician is to treat the patient. Fourth, there is assisted euthanasia that involves a situation in which a terminally ill patient wants to die but has to ask for assistance from a physician (Snyder & Caplan, 2012). Experts argue that this form of euthanasia involves proving patients with information or means that will enable them to take their life.
The catholic intellectual tradition on physician-assisted suicide
Physician-assisted suicide is one of the most sensitive issues followed closely by Catholics across the world. Leaders of the Catholic Church in various parts of the world have talked a lot about the position of the religion with regard to the dilemma associated with euthanasia (Carr, 2009).
Physician-assisted suicide has attracted the attention of the Roman Catholic Church because it contradicts its teachings about the value of life. Most pontiffs have in the past been associated with worldwide debates surrounding this issue. It is important to note that the teachings of the Catholic Church about death have a lot of influence on the way its adherents make important decisions in life (Carr, 2009). Important decisions such as ending the life of a terminally ill or elderly dying person should be guided by medical reasons. Religion teaches that it is important to uphold human dignity at all times. The traditional teachings of the Catholic Church encourage people to do their best and show compassion to people in pain (Kelly, 2006).
The Catholic Church is against unethical means of showing compassion and mercy such as euthanasia. Although research has established that this health care practice was developed with good intentions, the church believes that it compromises the value of life (Carr, 2009). For example, the immediate former holy father of the Catholic Church, Pope Benedict XVI, criticized the laws on euthanasia in Luxembourg when he visited the country in 2008 (Carr, 2009).
In his statement, the pope said that Catholics across the world were very saddened by the fact that political leaders in the country had agreed to pass legislation that allowed people to choose when to end their lives. He said that such laws were unethical and abused the integrity of religious people in various parts of the world because of their implication about the value of life (Carr, 2009).
This is in contrast with the teachings of the bible as explained in the book of Wisdom. The bible says that God created life and would be annoyed with anyone who makes an attempt to destroy it. Life is a sacred gift from God that everyone should treasure (Kelly, 2006). The church discourages development of legislation that gives people the right to choose between living and dying regardless of the circumstances leading to the decision. Catholics around the world believe that there is no problem in this world that is too small or big for God’s attention (Kelly, 2006). The Roman Catholic Church teaches that euthanasia is an unethical, illegal, and unreasonable act that should be discouraged by governments across the world.
Legal and moral contest regarding euthanasia
The issue of physician-assisted suicide or euthanasia has led to the development of a huge contest among various stakeholders in the legal practice. The same issues have led to a number of controversies in terms of the moral implication of allowing people to decide whether they want to live or die (Battin et al., 2004). According to legal experts, it is very hard to work against the need among people to have such legislation if they express their intentions in a clear manner. In addition, they believe that their main work is to promote the implementation of laws regardless of their moral implications (Carr, 2009).
The issue of physician -assisted suicide has been a major challenge for a very long time. One of the most important elements about this practice is the need to understand and respect a patient’s needs (Manning, 2000). This is the reason as to why some countries do not have legislation on euthanasia because they feel it is unethical to allow their citizens to have the freedom to end their lives.
Jurisdictions that legalize physician-assisted suicide have better health care delivery systems because patients have more chances of getting involved in decisions that affect their lives (Battin et al., 2004). It is important to note that physicians have both legal and moral obligations to meet in their work (Manning, 2000).
The legal obligation that every doctor has is to ensure that the patients who present a request to be assisted in committing suicide deserve to be granted their wish regardless of whether the physician is comfortable with the request or not (Carr, 2009). On the other hand, the moral obligation of doctors is to ensure the privacy of patient information, as well as making sure that the dignity of their patients is upheld at all times. This includes the ability of doctors to respect and uphold the decision made by a patient with regard to whether they want to die or live (Manning, 2000). The medical practice is guided by both legal and moral principles, which contrast on various issues that touch on life and people’s welfare (Carr, 2009).
The legal debate on the issue of physician-assisted suicide has existed in the United States for a long time (Snyder & Caplan, 2012). In 2007, the Supreme Court passed a ruling that completely changed the plight of terminally ill and old patients who wished to commit suicide but could not do it on their own. The land mark ruling declared that all state governments should uphold any federal legislation about physician-assisted suicide (Snyder & Caplan, 2012).
In addition, the ruling also gave state governments the freedom to develop their own legislation regarding their decision on whether to legalize the practice (Battin et al., 2004). Studies have established that the judicial system in the United States has played a crucial role in the development of this debate, as many people have gone to court seeking justice for declined requests. Health care experts believe that there is an urgent need to enhance the skills of physicians across the country with regard to competent handling patient requests (Manning, 2000).
Although different stakeholders continue to express their dissatisfaction with the legalization of euthanasia in various parts of the world, physicians and lawyers have an ethical responsibility to ensure that the law is respected and implemented (Snyder & Caplan, 2012). Therefore, the main focus of debates centred along physician-assisted suicide should focus on the way doctors can increase their efficiency with regard to getting information on various patient requests, analyzing them, and coming up with the best option for helping (Manning, 2000).
Effects of prejudice and medical ethics in euthanasia
Studies have established that the challenge of legalizing physician-assisted suicide in various parts of the world is highly influenced by factors such as prejudice and medical ethics. A partiality that prevents objective consideration of an issue or situation facing certain type of patients often influences the moral implications of this practice despite the controversy surrounding it (Carr, 2009). Health care workers argue that patients with any form of disability tend to endure more pain compared to those without any limiting condition.
There is an urgent need to develop legislation on euthanasia that covers the plight of disabled patients because current laws do not consider their needs. According to professionals working in the health care industry, disabled and terminally ill patients are more likely to forward a request for assistance to commit suicide compared to others (Snyder & Caplan, 2012).
Lifelong disabilities affect the ability of patients to endure serious pain for a long time because their own physical or mental condition drains a lot of energy from their bodies, thus leading to health conditions such as depression (Battin et al., 2004). A combination of all these factors influences disabled patients to adapt strategies such as boycotting treatment in order to deal with their inner struggles through death.
Studies have also established that various factors related to medical ethics also influence the moral implications of physician-assisted suicide. One element that has had the greatest influence on this moral issue is the conflicting nature of roles played by doctors in helping patients with their requests (Carr, 2009). One of the ethical principles of the medical practice is preserving and improving the life of patients by proving the best treatment option. Doctors should build good interpersonal relationships with their patients in order to increase chances of identifying the problem, analyze the best treatment plan, and wait for the outcomes to show (Battin et al., 2004).
However, with the emergence of the concept of physician-assisted suicide, the role of the doctor changes and becomes one of a health care professional helping their patient to take their life. This creates a conflict of interest with regard to roles played by a physician, which is a contradiction to medical ethics (Manning, 2000). Doctors should be preservers of life and not destroyers.
The controversy surrounding the concept of physician-assisted suicide also develops out of the concern for public safety (Snyder & Caplan, 2012). Health care experts argue that legalizing euthanasia will compromise the ability by people to live a normal life. The main reason for this is that simple life challenges and illnesses can compel some people into considering taking their lives simply because the law gives them a right to do so at their own will (Carr, 2009).
In addition, legal experts believe that passing a legislation according people the right to die will probably increase the vulnerability of some people. For example, people will terminal illnesses tend to create a financial burden on their families, especially if they are under medical care on a regular basis (Battin et al., 2004).
People in this group are vulnerable due to their health situation. However, their vulnerability can heighten if there is a legislation allowing people to decide whether they want to die or live owing to factors such as terminal illnesses, suffering, and financial challenges (Snyder & Caplan, 2012). Physician-assisted suicide defies the principles of medical ethics, and should be discouraged at all costs. It creates a contradiction in the roles played by physicians in a patients’ life, thus compromising the moral implication of the medical practice (Battin et al., 2004).
Conclusion
Physician-assisted suicide is often confused with euthanasia, which is also a form of assisted death. There is a group of people that advocate for the right to assisted suicide and those that consider it as an unethical act. Moral and religious factors play a crucial role in defining the correctness of various things surrounding the life of patients and the decisions they make. The controversy surrounding the concept of physician-assisted suicide touches on the legal, moral, religious, ethical, and social provisions that define self-annihilation. There are no specific ways of practicing physician-assisted suicide.
However, a patient should always forward their request to a licensed doctor. Physician-assisted suicide has attracted the attention of the Catholic Church because it contradicts its teachings about the value of life. The Roman Catholic Church teaches that euthanasia is an unethical, illegal, and unreasonable act that should be discouraged. It is important to note that physicians have both legal and moral obligations to meet through in their work. One of the considerations that future studies about anaesthesia can make include the need to advocate for respect for human life. There is an urgent need to develop legislation on euthanasia that covers the plight of disabled patients because current laws do not consider their needs.
References
Battin, M.P., Rhodes, R., & Silvers, A. (2004). Physician Assisted Suicide: Expanding the Debate. California: Psychology Press. Web.
Carr, M.F. (2009). Physician-Assisted Suicide: Religious Perspectives on Death and Dignity. New York: Wheat Mark Publishers. Web.
Kelly, D.F. (2006). Medical Care at the End of Life: A Catholic Perspective. New York: Cengage Learning. Web.
Manning, M. (2000). Euthanasia and Physician-Assisted Suicide: Killing or Caring? New York: Cengage Learning. Web.
Snyder, L., & Caplan, A.L. (2012). Assisted Suicide: Finding Common Ground. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Web.