Physician Assisted Suicide Argumentative Essay

According to Endoflife.edu, physician-assisted suicide (PAS) is when a physician gives a terminally ill patient materials and information needed to end their life peacefully (EndLink, n.d.). PAS ends patient suffering and promotes the dignity of dying patients. This act gives patients the power to control their lives, especially when their illness has controlled them. Granted, patients need to assess all avenues of pain relief, physiological treatment and life fulfillment before coming to the permanent solution of PAS. However, physician-assisted suicide is morally acceptable in certain circumstances when a consenting, terminally ill adult decides, after thorough deliberation, to end their suffering by ending their life. Although there are reasonable arguments against suicide such as motivation for medical advancement and the chance of the terminally ill getting better, they do not supersede an individual’s right to make decisions about their life and their death.

Assisted suicide has been an issue for debate throughout

history. Plato regarded chronically sick people as expendable and euthanasia was an appropriate option to ease the burden on the community (Boss, 2013). Early Stoics also taught that humans ought to quit life when they are no longer useful to society. At the same time, Christian and Jewish faiths condemned suicide, claiming it violates the sanctity of life and God’s authority over life (ProCon.org, 2013). In contemporary times, PAS has fallen in and out of public favor. It was accepted after the Great Depression in the 1930s, but unpopular to the public after the Holocaust in the 1940s. It slowly rose back in favor in the 1960s and 70s with societies founded to support individual’s rights to die with dignity. The controversial argument came to a head in 1990, when physician Jack Kevorkian participated in his first assisted suicide. He assisted over 130 deaths before he was convicted of murder in 1999. He was released 8 years later and vowed to change public legislation on euthanasia and PAS. Since that time, PAS is now legal in 5 states in the U.S., Canada, The Netherlands, Belgium, Finland, Luxembourg, Switzerland, and Germany (ProCon.org, 2016).
PAS is starting to become accepted again by the U.S.

public. According to Gallup.com, 68% of Americans support doctor-assisted suicide (Dugan, 2015). With good reason, as there are compelling arguments to support PAS. First and foremost, every individual has a civil right to make decisions about their own person. This stance also extends to the right to end one’s life if that individual has a terminal illness with an inevitable death. A person’s right to die should not be impeded, and that person should be afforded a painless option in doing so. It is understood that all Americans have the right to refuse life-saving or life-sustaining treatment by the Patient Self-Determination Act, but that law does not extend unto self-determining termination of one’s own life in order to be relieved of pain and suffering (ProCon.org, 2013). It is unfortunate that an individual can refuse medical treatment, but does not have the option to die

painlessly.
Another argument made for the support of PAS is that it allows patients to die without suffering. Many terminal illnesses cause horrible pain and suffering of the body before death. Some illnesses may also cause one to lose their mental and or physical abilities. It seems cruel to make a competent individual live out their last days in agony because it is simply not allowed to assist them to their eventual death. In the healthcare profession, a patient’s ‘quality of life’ is a point of interest in making decisions. Does the person in question have any quality of life if they are in constant suffering to the point of madness? I understand that patients can receive pain medication for discomfort. However, what is the quality of life of a person who is semi-conscious for the rest of their life? Having a low quality of life begs the question of what is in the best interest of this person. Humans put down animals all the time as a way to ‘give them peace’ or ‘put them out of their misery’. Why can’t that same courtesy be extended to human lives? PAS gives respect to an individual’s autonomy and allows for one to die with dignity (ProCon.org, 2013).
With arguments for PAS, also come arguments against it. One persuasive argument is that legalizing murder is a slippery slope. Some might suggest that if voluntary PAS and euthanasia became legal, how far would one have to go to rationalize involuntary euthanasia? A reason euthanasia and PAS fell out of public favor in the 1940s is because some of the first Nazi murders were described as mercy killings. The Nazi regime murdered thousands of the mentally ill and handicapped, calling it euthanasia (ProCon.org, 2013). Some may also suggest that physicians many persuade patients into a ‘duty to die’ instead of patients coming to doctors of their own accord (Boss, 2013, p. 184)
A logical rebuttal of this argument would be that simple regulations can ensure involuntary euthanasia from happening. If legislation was created for PAS and euthanasia, it would also come with regulations that patients and physicians must follow in order to participate in the act. I know that euthanasia argument was compared to the Nazi genocide, but like the slippery slope argument, this argument is a hasty generalization and considered informal fallacies (Boss, 2013). The Holocaust is an atypical case which did not start with good intentions, but the underlying plan to execute an entire race. To say that PAS would eventually turn into the Nazi regime is fear mongering and sensationalizing what is supposed to be a tool used for terminally ill individuals.
In some atypical cases, patients may wake from a coma, or be cured of a terminal disease. These miraculous recoveries are the basis of another argument against PAS. The argument is if some can be cured of the terminal illness, then PAS would be ending the life of a potentially healthy person. However, the majority of cases end with the slow and painful death of a patient. This is not only slow and painful for the patient, but it also wears down the family as well. Thinking back to the utilitarian philosophy, the correct action is the one that brings about the most happiness to all beings involved and reduces the most amount of pain and suffering. According to that logic, the answer would be to let the patient die with the least amount of pain possible. This saves the patient from unnecessary pain and suffering, the family from the burden of their terminal loved one, and thousands of dollars in medical costs. Does the life of one potential miraculous recovery justify spending millions to sustain ‘life’ to people who are comatose or brain dead?
This argument leads to another one regarding medical research for the terminal ill community. The dispute is if people choose PAS or euthanasia, less effort will be put into research for new cures for the disease. If more people choose the ‘duty to die’ because it becomes the likely choice in their situation, researchers will not find the value in curing them.
This suggestion could potentially pose a problem if individuals only wait a few months before deciding to kill themselves after a terminal diagnosis. However, usually diagnoses are something that people have time to deliberate on to weigh all options. Unless suffering from depression or other mental illness, I think humans in general have an inherent will to live. According to Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, before all else, is one’s desire for self-preservation. There is an instinctual, biological need to survive. So, in order to say that researchers will not have the motivation to find a cure, you also need to say that all patients will not seek the cure because of the lack of the desire to live. After the initial time of a terminal diagnosis, patients will seek ALL options for possible survival; this includes research studies. There is no evidence to support the argument that research will discontinue if PAS becomes legal in all U.S. states.
Requesting assisted suicide is not an appeal to take lightly. There usually is underlying unmet issues that are instigating the thought. According to Endoflife.edu, depression, fear of future suffering, loss of control, indignity, and being a burden to others are all reasons patients seek PAS (EndLink, n.d., pp. 2-3). That is why a trained physician should clarify the request and seek the root causes of the request. Endoflife.edu has a 6 step protocol for physicians who receive requests:
Step 1: Clarify the Request

Step 2: Determine the Root Causes

Step 3: Affirm Your Commitment to Care for the Patient

Step 4: Address the Root Causes of the Request

Step 5: Educate the Patient about Legal Alternatives for Control and Comfort

Step 6: Seek Counseling from Trusted Colleagues and Advisors
Only after these steps should the physician consider the request for PAS or euthanasia.
Coming from the medical profession, I know that people can say things they don’t mean when they are not of sound mind and body. It is vital for a patient to have a psychological evaluation to ensure they are competent to request PAS. This coincides with the 6th step of bringing in other individuals to assess the patient. Endoflife.edu reveals that individuals with depression are 4 to 5 times more likely to make serious inquires for PAS or euthanasia (EndLink, n.d.). If those needs of psychological treatment are not met, then the patient is not capable of making the sound decision to take their own life.
Physician-assisted suicide is an act that gives individuals the power to take control of how they live and die. This act is not one to take lightly and should never be decided without thorough consideration. The six steps described by Endoflife.edu is a helpful tool for patients and doctors in determining the right course for action. Many argue that PAS is wrong because of various reasons such as: being a gateway to involuntary murder, reducing incentive for medical advancement, eliminating the lives of potential survivors. These arguments have no standing because the hasty generalizations and slippery slopes are fallacies unless there is sufficient evidence to back up the claims. Every individual has a civil right, an autonomy to make their own decisions regarding their person.