Assisted Dying Over Time, Those in Support

Assisted Dying

Over time, those in support of assisted dying or what is more commonly known as physician-assisted suicide and those opposed to the same have presented strong and convincing arguments and counterarguments in support of their positions. In most cases, the term assisted dying is used synonymously with euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide. Assisted suicide in the opinion of Morrison "refers to when a patient intentionally and willfully ends his or her own life, with the assistance of a third party" (223). Whichever way one looks at it, life is sacred and therefore it should be preserved at all costs. In my opinion, permitting euthanasia would be in total disregard of the sanctity of human life. In the section below, I analyze some of the arguments that have over time been presented in support of assisted dying.

According to Norman et al., one of the arguments that have been presented in support of physician-assisted suicide has got to do with the need to respect an individual's choices in life (130). Proponents of this argument according to the authors are convinced that because we have "the right to pursue our own goals in life, as long as we harm no one else…" we should also be allowed to choose how we die. Yet another argument that has been floated by proponents of physician-assisted suicide has got to do with the alleviation of human suffering and pain. According to this argument, living with a disease that is rather painful can sometimes be considered worse than death (Norman et al. 130). It should be noted that based on their very nature, some diseases including but not limited to some forms of cancer occasion some unimaginable pain and agony to individuals. Those in support of assisted dying support the same on the premise that it eases the pain and suffering of such individuals.

It is however important to note that although the arguments presented above are seemingly valid, a more critical look reveals several weaknesses. For instance, in regard to the argument on individual autonomy, Devettere points out that all the arguments in support of assisted dying based on the autonomy of the patient "cannot by themselves establish what is morally right or wrong" (336). According to the author, having the ability to choose something freely does not necessarily make such a thing morally right or justifiable. According to Devettere, despite being a matter of personal choice, few people would regard playing Russian roulette morally good (336). In regard to the alleviation of human suffering especially where excruciating pain is being felt, Devettere is of the opinion that "…suffering can almost always be relieved without killing the person" (337). In recent times, advances in general medicine as well as palliative care have effectively made suffering tolerable. In that regard, the need for assisted dying should never arise.