Is Physician-Assisted Suicide Morally Acceptable - Essay Example

Is Physician-assisted Suicide Morally Acceptable?

Introduction

The legality and morality of physician-assisted suicide have been a controversial issue globally; medical experts have been faced with ethical and moral questions on the matter. The problem has led to the split in opinions since it contradicts their sworn responsibility to the role of healing rather than ending lives. The contentious issue raises numerous questions on the responsibilities of the health care providers when providing means to terminate the lives of the patients who are under palliative care are terminally ill. Suicide is referred to the act of taking one’s life, this act may or may not require the assistance of another individual. Physician-assisted suicide implies the intentional termination of life by another at the explicit petition of a person who is terminally ill and wishes to die thus this act is described as a way of taking one’s life out of concern and compassion for the individual’s suffering. The concepts of intention and foresight are essential factors in the determination of the morality and legality of whether physician-suicide assisted constitutes to a legal act or if it represents another kind of homicide. Foresight requires an evaluation of the possible outcomes while the concept of intention evaluates the act of physician-assisted suicide to determine whether the act was committed primarily for reasons which are acceptable such as compassion and mercy. The law requires that the individual wishing to die be mentally competent and be at least eighteen years of age. Mentally competent individuals who are suffering and do not have the slightest chance to survive in the long term have the right to die if and when they choose to do so: they have the right to refuse lifesaving treatments since they have the freedom to end their lives to escape the suffering from an incurable condition.

Moral Reasoning

The value of physician-assisted suicide is found in its intention to promote the autonomy of each. Physician-assisted suicide relies on an individual’s ability to make decisions for oneself thus leading to the formulation of the choice on what will happen to their body. According to Kant’s argument on morality, an act which is derived from the purity of both duty and the value, it presents supersedes the societal view of the action. Physician-assisted suicide is carried out with the sole purpose of alleviating personal suffering for terminally ill patients by providing them with the appropriate means to end their lives thus freeing them from the shackles of torture and excruciating pain which is experienced from ailments which are terminal in nature. The deontological libertarianism also is known as the natural-rights libertarianism advocates for the right for all individuals to possess the authority to oppose acts which are considered immoral, illegal or unethical if they have a sufficient right to object the reason. Physician-assisted suicide supersedes the concepts of morality, ethicality, and legality since its purpose is to help the patient suffering from a terminal illness to escape the pain and trauma which accompanies such an illness. Kant proposes that it is not the consequences of particular actions that qualifies them to be considered right or wrong but the motives and intentions of the individual who partakes the application of the actions. To act in the way which is seen as morally right, an individual must act purely from one’s sense of duty which drives him towards doing an act which is good. A physician has the obligation to promote and safeguard the welfare of the patients placed under their care, individuals who are terminally ill and do not have the remotest chance of coming out on top of the condition in the long run. Despite the fact that the recent advances in both medical technology and techniques provide both the physician and the patient with moral grounds to seek freedom from the pain and suffering. Kant argues that the consequences of a particular action which ride on good should act on the concept of what is morally right since actions which derived from the sense of duty lead to the application of acts which a have good intentions. These arguments strengthen the position to support physician-assisted suicide since the physician is driven by the high purpose to free the patient from his suffering, his acts are fueled by compassion and mercy. Kent claims that individuals only act out of the respect for what they consider being morally right thus prompting them to act in a way which drives them to fulfill their duties thus ultimately performing an action which can be viewed as morally right. Physician-assisted suicide is ethically justifiable since respects the concept of autonomy since the decisions about time and the circumstances which surround one’s death are personal thus each has the authority to make the choice on the timing and manner of his death. Physician-assisted suicide is as a result of compassion; the physician feels a strong sense of compassion towards the patients thus chooses to aid him in his decision to end his life. Suffering transcends pain since there are other attributes of the phenomenon which make it unbearable such as social, psychological, existential, and physical burdens which expose the patient to the deprivation of his sense of independence, sense of oneself, dignity, and his functional capabilities. Physician-assisted suicide promotes individual liberty since the patient can choose to free himself from the shackles that accompany terminal ailments despite the interest of the society to prolong his life, the patient can minimize the psychological damage which accompanies watching the life of a loved one slowly leave them.

Objection and Response

Opponents of physician-assisted suicide base their arguments on the notion that this action is a slippery slope which opens up the noble profession of offering medical care to patients to concerns which tarnish it since it violates numerous doctrines, values, virtues, and norms. The opponents believe that if the society embraces physician-assisted suicide, it will then lead to an exponential increase in cases of prejudice against the physically challenged since the negative emotions of hopelessness, depression, suffering, intolerance, injustice, and sadness may force the mentally competent individuals to choose to terminate their lives. Physician-assisted suicides contribute to the concerns about the roles of physicians since the participation in such an act can alter the function of the healthcare professional thus affecting his relationship with his patient. They argue that doctors are meant to preserve and improve the quality of life thus their involvement in the ending of life creates a rift which has the potential to ruin the reputation of the noble profession. The medical ethics emphasize that the role of the healthcare professionals is to help in the enhancement and protection of the patient’s welfare through the application of practices which are ethically acceptable, informed, competent, safe and caring. Palliative care recognizes that dying is part of the process of dying thus the medical personnel should focus on improving and maintaining the quality of the patient’s remaining life. The medical guideline describes the role of palliative care as one which promotes hope and belief through the application of appropriate care by meeting both the mental, emotional, physical. And spiritual needs of the patient and the community since palliative care does not postpone or hasten death instead it prepares them for a death which is satisfactory. The opponents argue that physician-assisted suicide is ethically impermissible since it violates the doctrine on the sanctity of life which is deeply anchored in cultural, religious, and societal values.

An individual suffering from a terminal illness and has no chance of survival is faced with the endless and tormenting physical, psychological and spiritual suffering since the person knows that nothing can be done to alleviate his situation despite the availability of technology and palliative care practices. The intention of the recent technological and palliative advances have made it possible to prolong the human life but to a patient faced with a terminal illness, these advance only serve as a means to torment them further since they extend their life making it possible for them to experience a longer stretch of suffering. Physician-assisted suicide should be allowed in some situations such as when the individual involved faced with a terminal illness and his mental faculties are still functioning at an optimal level. This decision saves the patient’s beloved ones the agony of having to watch the patient wither away in suffering and pain, the physiological stress and trauma associated with watch a loved one struggle to live although they are suffering immensely. The patients with terminal illness find comfort in the compassion and mercy which physician-assisted suicide brings to them since it provides them the opportunity to free themselves from pain, suffering, and peace of mind. Physician-assisted suicide is a valuable life service to terminally ill patients and their loved ones.

Conclusion

The twenty-first century is characterized by rapid and dramatic developments in technology and medicine thus providing the human race with the power and opportunity to save more lives. The advances in medicine and technology have numerous benefits; however, the same advances have also provided us with the means and power to sustain the lives of individuals suffering from terminal illnesses. The power to sustain life is also considered as the power to prolong the suffering of individuals with terminal illnesses since some of the degenerating symptoms and conditions which accompany the illnesses cannot be reversed, restored or eliminated. This deterioration calls for the merciful and compassionate need to provide the terminally ill individuals to end their lives in a humane, dignified way and on their terms. Physician-assisted suicide is a gift to individuals who are beyond medical saving since they are provided with the opportunity to end their lives thus ultimately reducing the financial and emotional burden placed on their loved ones as a consequence of the frequent hospitalization. The family can now be able to utilize the capital in other essentials in their life; they are also able to give their loved one an honorable death since his death happens on his terms rather than the excruciating and demeaning death caused by the terminal illness thus preserving his memory. The physicians, on the other hand, should feel the burden since they are only carrying out the actions for the sake of their patient thus enabling them to fulfill their oath to safeguard and enhance the wellbeing of their patients.