Physician-Assisted Suicide: Mercy or Murder - Research Paper Example

SUICIDE For this research a survey was chosen. Surveys are valuable, particularly in a qualitative study that seeks to measure attitudes and beliefsin a given population or populations. “Surveys can be classified by their method of data collection. Mail, telephone interview, and in-person interview surveys are the most common. Extracting data from samples of medical and other records is also frequently done. In newer methods of data collection, information is entered directly into computers” (Research, 2007). Generally the advantages of a self-administered survey are “economy, speed, lack of interviewer bias, and the possibility of anonymity and privacy to encourage more candid responses on sensitive issues” (Research, 2007). Surveys can also collect a relatively large amount of information for a relatively low price. This survey hypothesized that as people age, they will believe more in assisted suicide, or euthanasia, with age being the main variable, and random sampling being the main plan (Concord Mills Mall, every third person). The groups are arranged by the main variable: Group 1, ages 20-39, Group 2, ages 40 - 59 , Group 3, ages 60 and older. Participants circle a response in a closed question format. The basic hypothesis was supported by the results of the survey.  The survey also has to do with passive and active euthanasia. Passive and active euthanasia are both types of voluntary euthanasia. Active euthanasia would perhaps give the doctor less of a feeling of having been made to consciously give a patient up to death. Passive euthanasia and active euthanasia are respectively promoting increased pain and the erasure of future pain. It only makes rational sense that doctors would want to see less pain being suffered by the patient, but unfortunately, conventional notions of morality get in the way of the legalization of voluntary active euthanasia, connecting it inappropriately with the same murder that doing nothing to help the patient equally achieves. Either way, people in the survey tended to support euthanasia greater with age, and nationally, the Oregonian Death with Dignity legislation advocated assisted suicide or euthanasia, in this case active euthanasia through physician approved lethal prescription. “Six patients had also qualified under the criteria of the Oregon law and had received prescriptions for lethal drugs but in the end had chosen to die from their underlying illnesses--reinforcing, I believe, the idea that palliative care would be even more effective if patients can be reassured that they have the option of doctor assisted suicide” (Irwin, 1999). The legal situation in Oregon is a microcosm of what may be seen in the survey, as well as in the future concerning the issues of voluntary euthanasia and physician assisted suicide and how it plays out in legislation vs. reality. As one source notes, “Proponents and opponents of legalised doctor assisted suicide are watching the Oregon situation closely. I am sure that if there is any "mistake" the news of this will receive the widest possible dissemination. But, I am convinced that the carefully observed and well documented Oregon programme will be a good example for all of us concerned with the debate on doctor assisted suicide. If it works well there, why not here?” (Irwin, 1999). This is a question that many are asking about the law. The survey results show that many people personally advocate this type of law, but there are many perspectives to consider, not just the majority opinion, and there are many reasons or this consideration aside from personal or moral reasons; there are also reasons of law. The effect of futile treatment decisions in law cases such as these has a significant impact on the healthcare system as well, which is affected by the law and its currents. The decision to allow doctors to refuse patient demands for treatment that is seen by the physician as futile has already been made in many hospitals under legal and ethical auspices. Ultimately, from an institutional point of view, this is a cost-effective measure. “The patient wants life-sustaining treatment; the physician does not believe the quality of the patients life justifies the costs to the health institution or the physical and emotional burdens of care; therefore, the doctor is entitled to refuse further treatment (other than comfort care)” (Smith, 2001). Often from this legal perspective the equation is financial in estimation of the bottom line being insurance and the costs that will be incurred by the healthcare institution in sustaining the life of a patient who is seen to be beyond care and essentially terminal. This represents a step forward for advocates of active euthanasia, who argue that not only is it a financial burden for a life of agony to be continued unnecessarily, but that it is also an emotional burden for the patient, their loved ones, and the physician, who must undergo a struggle against death that s/he knows is already essentially lost. This ethical issue of swearing to protect the patient against death and then being expected to assist in the end of their life can take a serious toll on healthcare professional who must watch the patient live out the rest of their life in pain and suffering, rather than ending this suffering. But the issue of refusing demands for futile treatment still implies that passive euthanasia could be used, which basically turns this into a non-issue in that the physician could experience these same ethical feelings after refusing futile treatment. From one perspective, “Just as doctors once hooked people up to machines against their will, now many bio-ethicists advocate that doctors be permitted to refuse life-sustaining treatment that a patient wants but that they deem ‘futile’ or ‘inappropriate’” (Smith, 2001). There are people who are extremists and have opinions about other issues that influence their opinion on assisted suicide, but this is not always the case. There was one extremist in the survey group who was very anti assisted suicide. This case shows how there are many arguments against euthanasia that are not religious in nature but reflect on society, law, and individuals without thinking of God or the idea of “playing God.” Some think that these are the most sound arguments because they use logic and understanding instead of spiritualism to pronounce their opinions. Overall, as a survey participant who was against euthanasia stated, you don’t have to be religious to see society as something that is positive and individuals who should strive to help each other out in every way possible to get along best. But at the same time, not everyone agrees about the issue, even within the same family. States like Vermont and Oregon are taking steps to legislate in favor of physician assisted suicide. This ethical issue is very prevalent, but it also translates into an associated legal one. Politicians also like to get involved in the issue, for example as seen in the Terri Schiavo case. In this research experiment, most of the people agreed about assisted suicide, and they were for it. It went up slightly with age, but mainly the results in all of the age groups showed high numbers for assisted suicide. Public perception can differ, and there are a lot of limitations to the study. We didn’t put the questions through a rigorous test about whether or not they were leading questions. And a limited sample size was used, as well as random sampling. Although the results may not be representative of larger populations, they do reflect changing attitudes evinced by the cases referenced above. REFERENCE Irwin, M. (1999). Assisted suicide law in Oregon. British Medical Journal. Smith, Wesley (2001). Can Hospitals have the Right to Pull your Plug? San Francisco Chronicle. Research: Experimental methods (2007). http://psy1.clarion.edu/mm/General/Methods/Methods.html Read More