Argumentative Essay: The Ethics Of Assisted Suicide

Assisted suicide is a very controversial topic. Some people believe it is morally wrong to end someone’s life, while others think that if someone is terminally ill and suffering, they should be given the option to die on their own terms. The Death with Dignity Act is a non-profit organization that was founded in 1997 in Oregon; soon Washington and Vermont followed after, and now California has passed this law but it still has not went into effect. This is a movement that offers patients the right to die with dignity rather than allowing the illness to kill them slowly, and painfully. More specifically it gives them the freedom to an option. It can be from either physician assisted suicide or euthanasia. Although both words are used interchangeably

the meaning is different by law. Physician assisted suicide is when the doctor provides the drugs for the patient, but the patient administrates it themselves. While euthanasia is generally when the doctor injects the drug into the patient. There are also a couple other practices such as terminal sedation meaning the patient is sedated until they are unconscious, and then they pass due to dehydration or starvation. They may also withhold treatments that are used to sustain the patient’s life. A patient can take the drug wherever they choose, however the physician does advise them to not do it in a public place, if the patient takes the drug out of state it can be considered a suicide. Whatever it may be that the patient decides to do, their wish should be respected. If the physician decides they do not want to participate, the patient must then find another licensed M.D or D.O who is willing to be a part of the process. Due to confidentiality the health authorities cannot give out recommendations, they are also not allowed to give out the names of those who are participating, but the patient is most likely to find a participating physician in a larger city hospital.
To qualify for the death with dignity act the patient must be terminally ill with only six months left to live, they also need to be mentally stable. The patient must be a resident of any of the states where this law is being practiced, the length of residency isn’t important as long as they can show proof that they live in said state. While the method may vary in every state, the rules are basically the same. The physician is required to be a licensed doctor of medicine or osteopathy, and they may not be sought after for prescribing the drug. If the Death with Dignity Act isn’t allowed in the state the patient resides, they may stop taking treatments or decide to not start them at all and also stop drinking and eating all together. It can take several days or weeks for the patient to pass, it is completely unexpected and the effects may be tortuous, with only palliated care to help. Supposing that the patient decides not to take the drug, they must dispose of it. No one but the patient must make the request of participating in the act, even if the patient is in a coma; no family member is authorized to sign up for it. This is a voluntary decision made by the patient and physician. No one is forced to do anything they don’t want to do; all this does is provide an option. The cost for these lethal drugs can be expensive and health insurance doesn’t cover much if not any of it. Euthanasia is made out of pentobarbital, which can go from 15,000 to 25,000 in liquid form, but more people are switching to the powdered form that can be from 450 to 500. There is also another drug called secobarbital that serves to slow the activity of your brain and nervous system, this drug goes from 3,000 to 5,000. Because of the price range there are other mixtures being made up that a pharmacist has to prepare and these also can be 450 to 500. In the article “Californians can choose to die – with the help of taxpayers” by Kimberly Leonard, it states that “California will be second, after Oregon, which covers the prescriptions using public funds.” (Leonard, 2016). These two states are offering to help pay for a third of their residents, and it helps those who are suffering from their terminally ill condition because despite their income, those patients will still be treated. Nevertheless, there is still an argument to this statement in the same article, Brian Johnston a former commissioner on aging said that “When you’re willing to legalize the intentional killing of patients in order to save Medi-Cal money, there’s something a little bit utilitarian about that,” he also says. “We have a law that isn’t really designed for those we care for, but for those we don’t wish to care for anymore, that’s why Medi-Cal is paying for this.” (Leonard, 2016). He believes that states are allowing this simply to gain money from the patient or medi-cal and that is falls in with the patient’s relatives not wanting to care for them anymore. People may be against the movement for a couple reasons, their beliefs, their moral principles, and things they are accustomed to. Everyone has a different opinion and it can be based on any of those reasons along with someone’s own personal experience. The Death with Dignity Act has unfavorable circumstances such as demeaning of a human life, when someone chooses to take their own life they are leaving no chances for recovery and to even put a cost on this care is putting a price to the value of a human life. Not to mention this act goes against the Hippocratic Oath. If this law starts to be passed all over the States there could be a chance of abuse to the system, and corruption between doctors.

According to Ira Byock author of “Doctor-Assisted Suicide Is Unethical and Dangerous” she suggests that, “When doctor-induced death becomes an accepted response to the suffering of the dying people, logical extensions grease the slippery slope.” (Byock, 2014). If the practice of assisted suicide became more pronounced, Ira believes that instead of these doctors doing everything to the best of their ability to help their patient they might choose to give them the option of death with dignity. The patient may be terminally ill, but it is still never okay for the doctor to just give up simply because assisted suicide is “easier”. This law promotes the idea that the doctor and families can give up on recovery earlier than the patient’s time. This can give doctors too much power. There may also be pressure from insurance companies and the government on these doctors for them to take this road rather than sustaining the life of their patient. Also people who have religious beliefs can be completely against this because they believe that our lives are a gift

of god and it is said in the bible “Thou shall not kill” so they must protect the patient and physician from doing something that is morally wrong in their eyes. It can also take away the chance of a possible miracle for recovery. Many of us are quick to decide that a patient should end their life if they are terminally ill and the quality of their life just isn’t worth living anymore but in “Death wish Dignity: The cons of physician assisted suicide” Aja Backstrom quoted a woman who talked about her son having down syndrome and “she makes the argument that choosing death according to “quality of life” is an insult to anyone with a mental illness.” It shouldn’t be up to doctors or just anyone to decide whose life is worth living, or what the ideal quality of life may be. There are many people with disabilities and a mental illness however that doesn’t mean their quality of life should be seen as lower than the rest or something not worth living. Some people with depression and mental illnesses live a worse life than people with a terminally ill disease. Aja Backstrom also says that “For every single person it’s going to be under different circumstances, so how could someone make a law or decision speaking for someone else?” The Death with Dignity provides terminally ill people with an opportunity to receive “aid-in-dying” when their quality of life is no longer good, and that’s the decision that was made. We didn’t take into consideration those with severe mental illnesses, and the kind of quality of life they’re living nor did we think that these people may want a way out and abuse of a drug not prescribed to them. In the same article by Ira Byock, which I previously brought up, she also mentions that in Holland, “over 40 people sought and received euthanasia for depression or other mental illness.” So because this euthanasia is allowed, there are people who were not terminally ill who had access to this drug. This is slowly getting out of control in other countries, if it is permitted in the U.S. there is a possibility it will be the same response. We can’t deny the facts that seeing loved ones suffer from a terminal illness is painful. The Death with Dignity act argues that people can die with dignity and they don’t have to fear the day they become totally incompetent. This also gives them a chance to experience a painless death; the thing with planning one’s own death is that everything is on their terms, when they choose to go, if they even take the drug, etc. It gives them time for good-byes and nothing will be caught off guard, the patient will have the reins on the whole operation, beginning to end. Although the medical field has advanced over the years, there still aren’t many ways to battle a terminally ill condition, and the ways that are present tend to make the patient suffer. The main focus of this Death with Dignity Act is to relief the patient of their suffering, a physician must not forget this, they are trying not to harm their patient, well relieving them of the pain they are going through means they are helping with removing the harm, and their oath does say “first do no harm”. It would be inhuman to let a dying person carry so much pain with no way out. In Oregon they continue to improve the care of their patients, they are known to be the best hospice and palliate care in the nation, due to the fact that they spend the most time studying the symptoms of their patients. This act is a way of support for the patients who really seek for an ending to the suffering. If the law was enacted in every state it would help those patients that do not live in Oregon or California or those other states that allow it.

It is not fair for a person to have to move to a new state simply because of their condition, it is time consuming and have to change their whole life and become a resident of the state before they can be eligible for the drug. In “the right to death with dignity at 29” by Brittany Maynard she describes in detail about how once she discovered her illness and realized there was no cure it took her and her family a while to finally decide that physician assisted suicide was the only way for Brittany not to suffer, then she mentions that she had to move all the way to Oregon, become a resident and go to a few different changes so that she would be able to qualify for the act. She says “I would not tell anyone else that he or she should choose death with dignity. My question is who has the right to tell me that I don’t deserve this choice? That I deserve to suffer for weeks or months in tremendous amounts of physical and emotional pain? Why should anyone have the right to make that choice for me?” (Maynard, 2014). I believe this serves as a reminder to us that the Death with Dignity Act gives everyone that is ill a choice. Brittany

says she is not suicidal but the simple fact that she had this option was relief enough. No one wants to die suddenly and painful. With a terminally ill disease nothing is certain and you can pass at a time that you did not want to without even saying goodbye. This is a right that anyone terminal should have access too. In Brittany’s case she decided that it was for the best and with that in mind she enjoyed her last few days and even celebrated her husband’s birthday. In addition, when a patient is terminally ill, they are constantly getting medical therapy, and treatments which are expensive, I’m not suggesting that this is a good thing because it means the patients family doesn’t have “the burden” of paying off all the expenses. However, it isn’t a bad thing either, sure it may be rude to want to stop treating a patient because of the cost but if said patient feels as if the pain is no longer tolerable and they want to put an end to it all, why waste money still trying to extend their quantity of life? Unless it is actually benefiting the patient I don’t think this should be okay, a patient’s wishes should be respected no matter what. Ultimately the choice is up to the patient not the physician; the physician should not prolong the life of the patient if they have already decided that they want to go. In my opinion everyone deserves the right to a choice, the freedom to decide when they want to part. For anyone going through that situation, I can only imagine all the emotional and physical pain they feel. Being told you are terminally ill and with only six months left to live isn’t something anyone wants to hear. It can have a drastic effect on someone, to just hear those words, anyone can become quickly depressed and with no motivation what so ever. They are just waiting for the time to pass until they get to that fatal moment. I believe in this instant all this person is feeling is fear, fear for the unknown. Coming to terms with the fact that they are going to die they have the biggest decision to make, continue to suffer or participate in assisted suicide. It isn’t a bad thing, they are not forced to participate if they don’t want to but they must know that the option is there for them. No one should feel like they are alone and left with no other option but to wait around for the illness to kill them. I’m sure that just like Brittany Maynard, anyone who knew they had a choice would be in relief, and it provides them with peace of mind. The main thing anyone deserves when they are dying is peace. It is very important that in one’s last few minutes they are at peace with everything, to do the things they want, to see the people they love and to spend the last days these people have, with them, to know that they at least got to be with the most important people in their life, and for them to know that they are leaving the world with peace and happiness.
If this law is enacted nationwide of course there is going to be issues I don’t believe anything can be perfect but it will do some good to those terminally ill patients, and with responsible people watching over the drugs and only allowing certain doctors to prescribe it limits the chances of there being abuse. As well as making sure the physician gets to know the patient, and making sure they are eligible to receive medication. A terminally ill person doesn’t have much time to live, currently there are only 5 states that allow death with dignity, every other suffering patient that doesn’t live in any of these states doesn’t have the same options, they are suffering with no other way out but to simply stop taking medication and wait a couple of days to pass, no one should have to bare through that pain, and that’s why I believe that the Death with Dignity Act is a great end of life care.