Physician-Assisted Suicide

Physician-assisted suicide, the requested termination of an individual’s life suffering from a terminal disease, is a moral or ethical issue that has been debated over the years. The debate around this ethical issue leads to a sharp divide between people of contrastive ideas regarding whether it should be allowed or restricted in society, backing arguments in favour and against this issue. Individuals who oppose this practice seem not to agree with the notion that a patient can willingly ask for his/her death because they think that an individual’s right to die lies in the natural causes of the death. On the other hand, individuals with opposing views advocate the practice of terminating one’s life with their consent if they are suffering from advanced terminal diseases to end their pain and suffering in this world (Salem, 1999). Building on the suffering, pain, and costs associated with diseases, this argumentative essay uses the Rogerian approach to advocate the practice of physician-assisted suicide in cases where patients suffer from advanced terminal diseases. The paper through the deductive argument theory advocates the practice of termination of an individual’s life after their consent who suffers from illnesses such as the last stages of cancer or progressive heart illness which has detrimental impacts on the life, health, and financial conditions of the family, friends, and the patients themselves.

The individual diagnosed with a terminal disease, a life-threatening condition that causes the end of life, has to go through a horrible amount of pain, suffering, anguish, and helplessness that could drive them to the decision to end their miserable life. Patient with advanced terminal conditions goes through difficult situations which may influence their decision of assisted death being better than a life lived on miserable terms (Bharucha et al., 2003). Therefore, such patients have a common choice of physician-assisted death so that they can escape the suffering by terminating their lives voluntarily. Moreover, patients sometimes make this decision to reduce the physical and emotional suffering their family members and friends are subjected to because of their incurable disease so they voluntarily make the decision to enter the door of death in order to reduce the level of pain and suffering for themselves as well as the society (Emanuel et al., 2000). Proponents of this practice believe that one has every right to his/her life as well as death and a physician can fulfil the voluntary request of a person whether ill with a terminal disease or suffering from any trauma to provide mercy to their patients.

However, opponents believe that an individual only has the right to his/her life and death would come to him/her only by natural causes so a physician intentionally taking someone’s life is morally, ethically, and professionally wrong. Thus, they are uncomfortable with giving the ability and right to the doctors or physicians to terminate an individual’s life even though the patient suffers from incurable conditions because they think that every life is worth living even if disadvantaged by a terminal disease (Thomson, 1999).

Society disagrees with the practice of physician-assisted suicide following the moral, ethical, religious, and cultural factors, but it relieves a terminally ill person of long-term pain and suffering as well as unnecessary expenses that cannot save his life. In the United States and other parts of the world, assisted suicide practice is considered illegal because people are in a view that it is morally and religiously wrong to take someone’s life not even with their consent. Moreover, opponents of assisted suicide practice claim that doctors have to take care of every life backing the oath that doctors pledge while stepping into clinical practice that they would do no harm to the patients. So, in their point of view, terminating someone’s life even with their consent is a violation of the pledge or oath that doctors commit to their profession (Karsoho et al., 2016). While opponents focus on the value of human life, this paper argues that a life filled with pain and agony is a life that is no longer worth living. Building on the Rogerian approach developed by Carl Rogers that tends to focus on the person-centred conflict resolution strategy, individuals should have the ability to choose their fate and physicians have to provide services accordingly while empathizing and seeking mutual understanding with their patients (Greene, 2017). As Rogers believed that every human being has the capability and right to bring about positive change in their lives, physician-assisted suicide provides that freedom of decision to the patients whether they would live or die according to their own terms.

While both sides of the debate have their differences, with opponents being concerned about ethics and proponents being concerned about mercy, they also share similarities which include the well-being of the patients. Both sides have a stronger view that the individual’s right to die is as important as their right to live. Therefore, any decision to end a patient’s life even with their consent should be carefully taken into consideration and action must be taken with caution because a physician can assist a person in the process of death, but he cannot undo the process as the action to die can never be taken aback.

Patients with terminal or incurable conditions already know that their disease cannot be cured, and they would live their next days in a miserable way because these illnesses when reach a certain advanced stage have no cure. This also subjected family members and friends of the patients to constant suffering and emotional pain because their loved ones have very less chance of recovery to normal life. Consequently, patients suffering from incurable diseases may be influenced to take their lives willingly to end their own as well as their family’s suffering (Brody, 1995). Moreover, if physicians were not given the right and ability to assist someone in their decision to die in a legal way, patients would try to commit suicide in a horrifying manner while taking drugs by themselves. So, assisting someone professionally and through a legal way to a decision of respectable death is a far better choice than patients committing suicide by themselves in a dangerous way.

In conclusion, the value of a human’s life is immeasurable, but a life lived in agony has no purpose any longer. So, assisted suicide should occur if the person is suffering due to his/her terminal illness where there is no hope of life any more to the point of wishing for death. Hence, patients should have the right to make decisions about their medical conditions on the progress of treatment or assisted termination of life. However, patients with curable diseases should not be allowed to terminate their lives rather they should be given person-centred therapy as the Rogerian approach suggests so that they can focus on their capacity to improve. As it is argued that every individual on the face of Earth has the right to decide for their life and death, denying an individual the right to terminate their life to get peace from suffering is against ethical and moral laws. In a nutshell, the Rogerian approach drives that if a patient suffering from any terminal illness willingly asks for physician-assisted suicide where pain, suffering, and expenses seem to deliver no improvement and well-being for the patient, peace to suffering should be provided to end the misery of a vulnerable individual.

References

Bharucha, A. J., Pearlman, R. A., Back, A. L., Gordon, J. R., Starks, H., & Hsu, C. (2003). The pursuit of physician-assisted suicide: Role of psychiatric factors. Journal of Palliative Medicine, 6(6), 873–883.

Brody, H. (1995). Physician-Assisted Suicide: Family Issues. Michigan Family Review, 1(1).

Emanuel, E. J., Fairclough, D. L., & Emanuel, L. L. (2000). Attitudes and desires related to euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide among terminally ill patients and their caregivers. Jama, 284(19), 2460–2468.

Greene, R. R. (2017). Carl Rogers and the person-centered approach. Human Behavior Theory & Social Work Practice, 113–132.

Karsoho, H., Fishman, J. R., Wright, D. K., & Macdonald, M. E. (2016). Suffering and medicalization at the end of life: The case of physician-assisted dying. Social Science & Medicine, 170, 188–196.

Salem, T. (1999). Physician‐Assisted Suicide: Promoting Autonomy—Or Medicalizing Suicide? Hastings Center Report, 29(3), 30–36.

Thomson, J. J. (1999). Physician-assisted suicide: Two moral arguments. Ethics, 109(3), 497–518.