Euthanasia Physician Assisted Suicide Morality

¶ … Power to Kill Ethics in modern medicine are still grounded in a document that is thousands of years old: the Hippocratic Oath. The Hippocratic Oath states, "I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody who asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect," (Tyson 1). Clearly, the Hippocratic Oath warns against the practice of physician-assisted suicide or euthanasia. Physician-assisted suicide is generally considered to be against the tenets of practicing medicine, because medicine is supposed to heal, not kill.

In spite of this fact, several American states including California, Oregon, Washington, and Vermont have legalized the practice of physician-assisted suicide. The legalization follows a modern modification of the ancient Hippocratic Oath, which is not used in every American hospital but which does allow for the possibility of euthanasia (Tyson). Although it seems like a compassionate means of resolving pain, there are several reasons to oppose legalized euthanasia. One reason is medicine itself: pain can be alleviated through means other than dying.

New techniques and treatments provide the means by which to provide relief without ending a person's life. Another reason is that doctors should not be in the position of "playing god," and euthanasia empowers doctors in unprecedented and dangerous ways. Proponents of physician-assisted suicide usually claim that the practice is a last resort for people experiencing chronic pain and who have been terminal illnesses.

As Zeldin points out, even in countries like the Netherlands and Belgium, where physician-assisted suicide is legal, those doctors must meet certain specific criteria before killing their patients. The practice might be legal in some states and countries, but this does not mean the practice is moral. As Pinker points out in "The Moral Instinct," morality is often arbitrary and relative and that even Hitler might have believed he was acting "morally." Physician-assisted suicide is immoral for many reasons.

First, it is a practice that by definition entails either actively assisting someone to die or passively allowing them to die by withdrawing life support. As such, physician-assisted suicide takes a life. Although few moral beliefs are truly universal, Pinker does note that there are some a few themes that emerge throughout different cultures. One of those themes is harm. Even toddlers understand that harming other people is immoral (Pinker). Proponents of euthanasia claim that not killing the person does more harm because the person's life is painful.

Yet all people suffer, and pain is an integral part of life. Doctors clearly are not allowed to kill anyone, but a few individuals have decided that doctors are allowed to kill people who have terminal illnesses -- something that could be viewed as discrimination. Another problem with physician-assisted suicide is that the practice gives too much power to doctors.

Even though the modern Hippocratic Oath states, "it may also be within my power to take a life; this awesome responsibility must be faced with great humbleness and awareness of my own frailty," it also claims, "Above all, I must not play at God." What is taking a life if not "playing at God?" People who have terminal illnesses do not want to be sick and die; they want to get better. It is the doctor's express duty to help people get better.

In places where physician-assisted suicide has been made legal, doctors can make the decision of whether or not to take a life but no one else can do this. Doctors should not be placed in a position of such supreme authority that they alone have the power over life and death. Not all doctors can be trusted, and not all patients can make sound decisions once they have been diagnosed with a terminal illness. Moreover, doctors already have significant power in terms of being viewed as persons with authority.

Many patients defer to a doctor's opinion automatically. A doctor that prescribes a death sentence could influence a patient and the family in ways that manipulates their emotions. The morbid feelings a patient feels when they have been diagnosed with a terminal illness are understandable, but doctors should not be enabling such pessimistic thinking that would lead to welcoming death.

Medical breakthroughs happen regularly, and there is no reason to believe that a person who is in palliative care could not simply hold out a little longer just in case that cure or remedy has been found. A doctor who prematurely kills a patient shows little trust in the miracle of modern medicine. The moral obligation of doctors is to their patients and the integrity of their profession.

In places where physician-assisted suicide has become legal, doctors and other healthcare workers are put in the precarious moral position of making a decision they might not be comfortable making. Legalized euthanasia harms the medical profession by placing pressure on doctors to honor requests for their patients to die. Insurers, tempted by the opportunity to save money by killing off terminally ill patients early rather than paying out for their life support systems, might also pressure institutions and doctors.

Individual doctors might be able to refuse a euthanasia request, but there will always be another doctor nearby.