Assisted Euthanasia

Physician-assisted suicide or death has emerged as a major controversial and medical-ethical issue in the modern health care system. This issue has attracted huge concerns and debates among policymakers, medical practitioners, and the public. These concerns and debates have led to the emergence of arguments and counter-arguments in support and opposition to physician-assisted suicide. In addition, physician-assisted suicide has become a topic of research by various scholars based on these concerns and its benefits and/or disadvantages.

An example of a research that focuses on the issue is the study by Timothy E. Quill on why physician-assisted suicide should be allowed. The author argues for the acceptance of physician-assisted suicide based on his experience as a primary care physician and the assistance he provided to many patients to die with their full consent. Quill's research article is helpful in providing justification for the overall legalization and acceptance of physician-assisted suicide.

The author begins by stating that his work as a primary care physician and palliative care consultant has involved helping many patients to die with their full consent. These patients would have chosen another alternative or path if their diseases or conditions were not severe and irreversible (Quill, 2012, p.57). He also argues that clinicians should first ensure the sufficiency of palliative interventions in response to a request for assisted death since palliative care and hospice should be standards of care for patients with terminally-ill conditions.

However, some of these patients will suffer intolerably despite receiving high quality palliative care, though such interventions are generally effective whereas a small portion will ask for physician-assisted suicide. This implies that palliative care can deal with most, but not all, end-of-life suffering if utilized with skill and expertise. Under these conditions, there are five probable interventions that are utilized as the last resort including hastening opioids for dyspnea or pain and preventing probablelife-prolonging therapies. The other interventions include opting to stop eating and drinking, palliative sedation, and physician-assisted death.

While the first three options may be initiated by surrogate decision makers, the final two should be initiated by the patient. The seeming inability of palliative care to address all end-of-life sufferings is a strong justification for physician-assisted suicide. Therefore, the least harmful way of responding to intolerable end-of-life suffering would be helpful to clinicians, patients, and families. This harmful method should be conducted in a manner that is effective and respects the values of the major stakeholders in delivery of care.

In expressing his support for legalization of physician-assisted suicide given the inability of palliative care to address all end-of-life suffering, Quill (2012) states that the benefits of an open, legally permitted practice outweigh the dangers of a secret practice (p.63). Reflection As previously mentioned, physician assisted death is a major contentious issue because it creates concerns on preservation of a dying person's independence and the need to safeguard patients from pressures in the process of dying (Messer, 2012).

The article presents significant insights for legalization of the practice, which illegal in many states and countries. It is a balanced opinion on the issue because the author includes recommendations for the.