By Hope Sardella
PHI 208 Ethics and Moral Reasoning
Prof. Craig Thompson
Disclaimer: This article was originally written for Ashford University in 2017 as apart of my Environmental Studies degree plan.
Physician-assisted suicide, which is also referred to as euthanasia, is an act of ending a patient’s life whose health condition is considered incurable or when a patient considers the procedure. Notably, euthanasia can be performed by a patient’s request in different circumstances. A prominent example to consider is the suffering from stage four cancer (metastatic cancer), which is the most advanced stage where cancer has spread to nearly all parts of the body. Therefore, in such situations, patients experience immense pain that may prompt them to contemplate the procedure. Evidently, physician-assisted suicide is a method that had been practiced for centuries and can be traced back to ancient Greece and Rome, where individuals of higher social ranks allowed themselves to be killed to avoid prolonged suffering, which was against the Hippocratic Oath (Bryant, 2003). In 2015, the first legal case regarding the practice of euthanasia was held in Colombia, which sparked a lot of discussions across the globe (Reis de Castro et al., 2016). Presently assisted death is legalized in Switzerland, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, Colombia, Belgium, Canada, and some states in the U.S. such as California, Montana, Washington, Vermont, and Oregon (Reis de Castro et al., 2016). As we can see from the previous example, physician-assisted suicide has been a common practice for a long time. Although the practice has its place in history, I ask the reader to consider the economic advantage the practice has for big pharma. The practice of euthanasia should be reconsidered due to its adverse impacts, such as endangering the weak, corruption of the Hippocratic Oath, and the violation of human equality and dignity.
Position Statement: Physician-assisted death should only be considered in critical cases since it has resulted in unethical practices such as the violation of human dignity, reduction in healthcare quality, corrupt medical care, and endangering the weak.
Supporting Reason: Endangering the marginalized and weak patients is one of the many adverse impacts of physician-assisted suicide. In most circumstances where the practice is legalized, medics tend to be reluctant to safeguard actions aimed at minimizing risks in severe situations (Anderson, 2015). Hence, euthanasia provides such physicians with an easy option for people who might be in a position to live longer through medical assistance.
<p class="has-drop-cap" value="<amp-fit-text layout="fixed-height" min-font-size="6" max-font-size="72" height="80"> Moreover, such unwillingness to help patients suffering from critical conditions has negatively influenced the practice of medicine by corrupting the profession through the practice of authorizing ending patients' lives without t in-depth exploration of other solutions. Hence, physicians should not consider assisted death as a quick fix to critical conditions but should treat it as a last resort. Euthanasia has been linked to the general harm of inter-generational and family obligations. The stigmatization experienced by individuals suffering from critical health conditions such as the disabled and older adults may lead to them resolving to assisted death (Anderson, 2015). Whereas, such situations may be addressed by creating awareness of the importance of inclusivity in society. Notably, when such people are appreciated and treated equally, rarely will they consider ending their lives. The truth of physician-assisted suicide is that the practice is not one medical professional, I believe, like making, but the ethical driving forces behind a physician cannot be ignored that a multi-billion dollar industry influences the practices of doctors. Physician-assisted suicide undermines genuine compassion and social solidarity. As much as physician-assisted deaths are implemented in various countries, the practice undermines different ethical issues. Physicians should always strive to explore other medical solutions aimed at prolonging a patient's life or actions that are capable of minimizing risks in extreme medical conditions.References
Anderson, R. T. (2015, March 24). Always Care, Never Kill: How Physician-Assisted Suicide Endangers the Weak, Corrupts Medicine, Compromises the Family, and Violates Human Dignity and Equality. The Heritage Foundation. Retrieved from http://mtpastors.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/Always-Care-Never-Kill-Physian-Assis ted-Suicide-Hertiage-BG3004.pdf.
Bryant, D. C. (2003). Handbook of death and dying. Thousand Oaks: SAGE.
Reis de Castro, M. P., Antunes, G. C., Marcon, L. P., Pacelli, L. M., Andrade, L. S., Rückl, S., & Andrade, V.L. (2016, August). Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide in Western Countries: Systematic Review. Scielo, 24(2), 355-365. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/1983-80422016242136.
Hall, R. (2016, August). ASSISTED SUICIDE A Matter of Personal Liberty. CSU, 5(1), 1-5. Retrieved from https://writing.colostate.edu/gallery/talkingback/v5.1/hall1.htm.