Ethical Issues With Physician Assisted Suicide

The ethical issues of physician-assisted suicide are both emotional and controversial, as it struggles with the issue of life and death. If you take a moment and imagine how you would choose to live your last day, it is almost guaranteed that it wouldn’t be a day spent lying in a hospital bed, suffering in pain, continuously being pumped with medicine, and living in a strangers’ body. Today we live in a culture that denies the terminally ill the right to maintain control over when and how to end their lives. Physicians-assisted suicide “is the voluntary termination of one's own life by the administration of a lethal substance with the direct or indirect assistance of a physician” (Medical Definition of Physician-Assisted Suicide, 2017). Physician-assisted

suicide is to be distinguished from the discontinuance of life-support measures in terminal states, therefore, the patient dies of the underlying illness, and from administration of narcotic analgesics, which may ultimately hasten death (Webster, 2011). While the idea of physician-assisted suicide sounds like an unethical choice, if we look from the patients’ perspective, we will be able to discover that the opposite may be true.
Literature Review
Throughout the recent years, humanity has experienced the continuous advancement of medical technology.

As a result, life-sustaining procedures such as ventilators, feeding tubes, and treatments for infectious and terminal diseases are developing. While these life-sustaining methods have positively influenced modern medicine, they also inadvertently cause terminal patients extensive pain and suffering. Previous to the development of life-sustaining procedures, many people died in the care of their own home, however, today the majority of Americans take their last breath lying in a hospital bed. As the advancement of modern medicine continues, physicians and patients are going to encounter life-altering trials and tribulations. Arguably, the most controversial debate in modern medicine is the discussion of the ethical choice for physician-assisted suicide.

The discussion of physician-assisted suicide is frequently focused around the ethical implications. The confusion commonly surfaces from the simple question, what is physician-assisted suicide? Physician-assisted suicide can be defined as a circumstance in which a medical physician provides a lethal dose of medication to a patient with a fatal illness. In this case, the patient has given consent, as well as direction, to the physician to ethically aid in their death (Introduction to Physician-Assisted Suicide: At Issue,

2006).
In addition to physician-assisted suicide, there is a negative connotation attached to Euthanasia.

Euthanasia is divided into two separate classifications consisting of passive euthanasia and active euthanasia. Traditionally, “euthanasia is passive when a physician allows her patient to die, by withholding or withdrawing vital treatment from him…euthanasia is active when a patient's death results from his physician's killing the patient, typically by administering lethal medication” (Varelius, 2016). While active euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide share many of the same characteristics, they differ in the role for committing the final act, resulting in the death of the patient. A third party, consisting of either a family member or the physician, is responsible for “pulling-the-plug” in active euthanasia. On the other hand, in physician-assisted suicide, it is ultimately up to the patient to commit the final death-inducing act. Varelius suggests that the separation of passive and active euthanasia can be explained by the involvement that the physician partakes in their patients’ death

(2016).
Physician-assisted suicide is merely legalized in six out of the fifty states in America, however, there are additional states that are currently pending in legislature. The states that have Death with Dignity Laws include Oregon, Vermont, Washington, California, Colorado, and Montana (Oregon Department of Human Services et al., 2017). Alongside approved legislation generates requirements for safeguards. Each individual state has their own unique set of regulation, still, the core of their regulations is consistent across the board. The Death with Dignity Organization defines and describes the aid-in-dying laws that work to protect patients from abuse and coercion. All patients must meet the eligibility requirements, including having a terminal illness with at least a six-month prognosis, in addition, there must be a second medical opinion to confirm both the diagnosis and prognosis. The patient must be over the age of eighteen, a resident of the legalized state, and mentally competent. It is mandatory for the patient to give an oral request, as well as a written consent form, for physician-assisted suicide. A waiting period must pass by before any administration of medication can be dispensed, and the patient has the right to change their mind at any point during the process. Throughout the entire journey, the physician is required to submit a written form documenting the entire process. All of the conditions mandated by law are created to protect both the patient and physician. Not only do these regulations allow the patient to make the ultimate decision about the path they want to endeavor, but they also help to ensure that the physician doesn’t perform any procedure if due process is not followed (Behuniak & Svenson, 2003).