Introduction
The voluntary ending of one’s life with the direct or direct doctor support of one’s life through the delivery of a deadly substance is termed physician-assisted suicide (Vandenberghe, 2018). Suicide with aid is not permitted in many nations, although suicide with assistance has been legalized in some countries. For several reasons, people opt for helped suicide; a person having an incurable sickness and suffers from pain can choose to help them commit suicide. Persons who are old and life is making them miserable choose helped suicide, mentally disadvantaged people. Doctors have sufficient knowledge and experience to determine when the days of a patient are numbered; dying patients are often unable to cure themselves, and some cancers cause protracted, excruciating death. Physician-assisted suicide entails more than simply ending one’s life; it also entails the dignity, worth, ethics, and morals we as individuals choose to believe, which will influence the decisions individuals make about their lives.
Arguments and Counterarguments
Arguing for the side of life has grown harder; although many may deem life worth fighting for, many painfully disagree. The physician-assisted suicide article states the values and views of the health care providers on the practice of assisted suicide (PAS). According to the journal, PAS is intended for people with a severe condition that is entirely able to decide. PAS is a sustainable alternative if critically ill or diagnosed and if a patient can request a prescription of medicinal products to speed up death in six months or less (Pedersen & Tariman, 2018). Many family patients choose suicide because the patient has long been in a coma, and there is a slight possibility of recovery. Even those who do not have money to treat themselves and know that their sickness will not be healed, even these patients choose to help themselves, so they do not want to waste money on therapy. Additionally, physician-assisted suicide should be legal for those patients who are unable to bear more pain at the end of their life with a formal content that should be taken from patients and family members.
On the other hand, aided suicide is not easy; a person needs government consent, and a lot of paperwork is needed, and time will be needed. Researchers acknowledged two validations of suicidal assistance physicians as an obstacle to agony and reverence in favor of self-sufficiency until the end of life (Anneser et al., 2016). They disagree that the use of aided suicide is cruel. The rationale for fighting aided suicide is that it may increase a person’s defenselessness near the end of their life expectancy. It is considered ‘specific’ in supporting the patient’s suffering. Only certain states in the United States have legalized suicide aid. Suicide aid is sometimes confused with the murdering of mercy, and second-party helpful suicide offers a way to help people end their lives voluntarily; thus, physician-assisted suicide should not be legal.
Critical Thinking Evaluation
People disagree not just because of spiritual but for ethical concerns with the preference of helped suicide. Persons also differ because of their compassion for the patient who has been suffering for a long time. According to research, the organization of the helping suicide group has caused several significant legal advancements. In Colorado on 16 December 2016, the Law granted a right to sign the death certificate of an individual who used an assisted suicide medicine for the accompanying doctor or hospice medical director. The decision is not to make the patient without assistance (Sulmasy et al., 2018). Not only do you need to be cognitively adept to do that, but you also want to locate a prepared doctor. The patient’s friends and families often experience the patient as much or more agony. In such long-suffering, it is hard to see a loved one. The burden has long been physically and emotionally draining and when a patient finally dies, it typically happens suddenly or after a period in which the patient has lost consciousness. Suicide with a doctor would provide the patient with an opportunity to say farewell and dignify his life. Physicians can maintain valuable organs donated to others through physician suicide (assuming the patients are organ donors). If some diseases are permitted to run entirely, however, organ function may deteriorate or stop working. Again, one must put his or her livelihoods before the dying’s needs.
Fallacies are erroneous beliefs that are occasionally formed; the slippery slope fallacy is the main logical misconception identified in this situation. According to research, the case can be divided into two categories. The first is the slippery slope, in which it is assumed that approving assisted suicide will lead to a harsh consequence because culture will be unable to prevent a fall just before this disadvantage. For a more straightforward interpretation, this conflict will occur regardless of what is logically required. According to Smith, the logical slippery slope is the second classification. If an individual consents to this method of justification, it depends on what is rationally mandatory. In its simplest form, it does not require anyone to acknowledge the public’s willingness to accept B if A has already been acknowledged at some point in the past. If A has been recognized, high society must logically accept B (Devine, 2018). This leads to deception in the belief that it will be misused in the future. Where the discussion should focus on the present, why it should be legalized, and the benefits, or vice versa, depending on which side you take. Assuming something that has not happened yet can put the topic’s understanding and truthfulness in jeopardy.
Whether one believes in the right to die or not, both sides research in order to determine which option is superior. Both use the word “choice,” as in the option to end one’s life or the option that is not one’s making. The most contentious issue is which path to take; ultimately, it is up to one to decide. According to research from other articles, the ideals of freedom and control push people to make that choice. Others are pushed away from fully committing to ending their lives by religion (Bulmer et al., 2017). The argument that ends all arguments for many religious people is that VAD is the sanctity of human life that is direct affronting. It is argued that human life is a gift from God and thus cannot be taken away from us.
As a result, this leads to the concept of a “good” versus “bad” death, which is defined as “a ‘good’ death eventuates at the correct time place, whereas a ‘bad’ death does not consider the rightness aspect. This may appear to be a case for the right of taking individuals’ own life. Instead, it says an assisted death may be more of a culmination of burdens to others, even a final act of caring serving as a farewell gift designed for others, than an act of unmitigated autonomy and choice of an individual. Bringing up the point that physician-assisted suicide is still debatable, it can be ethical if the person who is dying makes the decision.
According to studies, the acceptance of physician-assisted suicide is growing as the right to make one’s own decision becomes more potent in today’s world. They exemplify the fact that dignity is the driving force behind everything. The idea that the sanctity and dignity of life are somehow related is a possible middle ground. As a result, there is no reason why accepting physician-assisted suicide makes some people less valuable than others. This argument is more relevant to today’s times and the desire to control one’s own life. This debate over who is correct and who is incorrect boils down to personal beliefs. Controversy arises from opposing viewpoints and beliefs, but it all begins with the ideals you were raised with, the religion you were raised believing in, and the morals you were taught. As a result, two decisions may not be the same because they come from two completely different life experiences.
Conclusion
In conclusion, physician-assisted suicide has been a contentious topic for many years, but it will always be a contemporary debate. Life is the one thing people all have in common in this world; they all have one life, and how everyone lives depends on where they live, how they grew up, and the decisions they make every day as individuals. As a result, the debate over ending one’s life is crucial. The decisions people make for themselves are questioned, but they still have the liberty to do as they please within specific parameters. Individuals need to feel in control of their lives and make the best decisions for themselves without being judged. Individuals should also have the freedom to express their feelings, even if it means interfering in another’s life. Physician-assisted suicide entails more than simply ending one’s life; it also entails the dignity, worth, ethics, and morals individuals choose to believe.
References
Anneser, J., Jox, R. J., Thurn, T., & Borasio, G. D. (2016). Physician-assisted suicide, euthanasia and palliative sedation: attitudes and knowledge of medical students. GMS Journal for Medical Education, 33(1).
Bulmer, M., Bohnke, J. R., & Lewis, G. J. (2017). Predicting moral sentiment towards physician-assisted suicide: The role of religion, conservatism, authoritarianism, and Big Five personality. Personality and Individual Differences, 105, 244-251.
Devine, P. E. (2018). On slippery slopes. Philosophy, 93(3), 375-393.
Pedersen, C., & Tariman, J. D. (2018). Beliefs and Attitudes of American Nurses on Physician-Assisted Suicide: An Integrative Literature Review. Journal of Nursing Practice Applications & Reviews of Research, 8(1), 24–38. Web.
Sulmasy, D. P., Finlay, I., Fitzgerald, F., Foley, K., Payne, R., & Siegler, M. (2018).
Vandenberghe, J. (2018). Physician-assisted suicide and psychiatric illness. New England Journal of Medicine, 378(10), 885-887.