Dying with Dignity

Dying with dignity is a controversy argued in two perspectives by death scholars. Some scholars argue that dying with dignity is expiring without unnecessary physical pain while others argue that it is dying in the socially accepted ways. Reaching these arguments was in light of changing health care demands and diverse customary practices. This controversy dated back to the ancient civilizations when many Greeks believed that taking one's life was better than experiencing endless suffering. This made physicians give poison to the terminally ill patients. However, with the advent of Christianity, the Hippocratic School that was against giving deadly drugs to patients acquired considerable acceptance. Therefore, euthanasia, as called in the fifteenth century was suicide and thus immoral. As time passed, reintroduction of the use of euthanasia continued, and it has even been largely accepted in various medical institutions.

In the perspective of dying with dignity as dying without any unnecessary physical suffering, doctors came up with the practice of physician-assisted suicide (PAS) also referred to as physician-assisted death. It is a voluntary ending of one's life by taking a lethal substance that prescribed by the physician. Supporters of physician-assisted death argue that patients have the right to receive aid to hasten their death. They also argue that, it is the most humane and dignified way to treat terminally ill patients who are competent to choose how they want to die thus considered as part of the last resort. According to the members of Compassion & Choices, medical paternalism is a coercive practice which results in life-prolonging practices that are insensitive to the patient's autonomy. According to Beauchamps and Childress (2009) autonomy refers to an individual's ability to make decisions.

According to Beauchamp and Childress (2009, p.183), several illustrations justify physician-assisted suicide. These illustrations include; a voluntary request should be made by a competent patient, which is persistent, preferably done twice within a span of fifteen days. There should be an ongoing patient-physician relationship. The decision making should be well informed in that the physician should consult another health care provider before making the decision. The patient to express a durable preference for death even after the availments of the choice of palliative care. The patient should also be experiencing unacceptable suffering, and lastly, the physician should use a means that is painless and more comfortable for the patient.

Physician-assisted suicide although unethical has wide acceptance because it comes with importance both to patients and their family. Once a competent patient requests for it, it can be administered in-order to end the lengthy life and care in an Intensive Care Unit, which is normally demoralizing and dehumanizing for patients and their families. Care in the Intensive Unit is also expensive due to the technological facilities and medication involved. Therefore, the choice of terminating the terminally ill patient aids in reducing the financial burden. Secondly, terminally ill patients choose physician-assisted suicide to end their dependence on others. According to Gentzler (2003), many people associate dependency with indignity and, therefore, prefer to end their life and thus maintain their dignity.

However, there are death scholars who argue that dying comprise the socially oriented ways of dying. Various studies made to light the quality and effect of informal caring networks gain strength as a result of caring for a person dying at home. It aids in understanding how this caring network impacts on family, friends and the community at large. These scholars argue that these ways of caring contribute to social capital and thus create compassionate communities. They claim that physician-assisted suicide violates the fundamental physician's duty to protect the human life. Therefore, they show their opposition and resistance to the western expert-based approach to end-of-life care.

In accordance with the belief that physician-assisted suicide is morally wrong, there has been planning to make extensive advances in the United States, in the treatment of chronically ill persons. For example, palliative care acquired certification by The American Board of Medical Specialties. This involves the use of hospice programs to take care of terminally ill persons. This has called for production of more properly trained professionals to take care of the chronically and terminally ill. The use of these hospice facilities has the advantage of unburdening the healthcare system and ensuring appropriate care is taken for the terminally ill patients. According to Poroch (2012), there was advocacy to adapt the Home Hospice model of care. This is after encouraging terminally ill patients to return to their homes where their family members take care of them to their death. This allows their families to spend adequate time with their relatives, which makes acceptance of their demise easier. This reduces the cases problematized grief.

In my opinion, the article for physician-assisted suicide has a stronger argument. It may be unethical to end someone's life but when it comes to endless physical suffering, and the patient feels the pain is unbearable, then it becomes ethical to terminate their suffering. In the above argument, the various advantages resulting from this practice makes it a stronger argument. These advantages are less dependent on others, ending lengthy Intensive Care Unit healthcare that is both demoralizing and dehumanizing. This has thus resulted to reduce the financial burden both to the patient and family. Also, it has the advantage that the patient makes the decision and thus the physician does not go against the required code of conduct. However, in the article against physician-assisted suicide, the only advantage is of reduced problematized grief. That is family members take less time to accept the demise of their relative. Allowing the patient to live until their death leaves them financially dented, a situation that would be avoided by accepting the wishes of the patient to die.

In these articles, there exist logic fallacies. These are arguments which profess to be decisive of the matter at hand, but in reality they are not. Both articles argue that physician-assisted suicide is murder. However, in reality it is not. The reason why this is a logic fallacy is that, scholars make it appear wrong to end a person's suffering but in reality, considering it is the patient's own will, then calling it wrong is decisive.