Physician-assisted suicide: ethical and legal perspectives

Physician-assisted suicide is a humane approach to dying and should be adopted legally in all states. Anyone who is terminally ill should have the right to choose how they die, specifically since they face death every day. Physician-assisted suicide is no more harmful than other methods of patient care that address patients needs, rights and desires. Given the fact that most terminally ill patients have a limited life to live, it is the duty of doctors and health care providers to see their rights and wishes are granted, even if those wishes include a hastened journey toward death. For many patients death is a far more optimistic outcome than living a life of pain and suffering.

The Argument

A growing body of health care workers, doctors and physicians currently support physician-assisted suicide as a compassionate and caring method to deliver ones last rights. Woodman (2000) points out that many health care workers believe that the desire among people to speed up their progression toward death is actually quite normal, healthy and a rational approach to a devastating situation. Many also reveal that the request for a quickened death is quite a common response (Woodman, 2000).

Many historical events have changed the healthcare communities views toward physician-assisted suicide, none the least of which is the AIDS epidemic, which for many years had a clear outcome of death and suffering for patients (Woodman, 2000). Patients who knew they would die increasingly requested that physicians assist them in their plight, to hasten their journey to the other side and reduce their pain and suffering. While some may have objections to this a vast majority must agree that in some cases physician-assisted suicide is compassionate, not only for suffering patients but also for family members that must endure the pain of suffering as well.

Unfortunately many patients still find it challenging to find a physician who will assist them. Most patients end up counting on family or friends to assist them when they make the decision to die (Woodman, 2000). Instead of dying with dignity many patients suffering from terminal illness resort to barbaric or archaic methods of death including smothering by pillows or even slitting their own wrists (Woodman, 2000).

Ultimately a physician assisted killing is more human and just than a suicide done poorly as a result of lack of resources. Despite what opponents may feel one must admit death through injection is more humane than death by shooting. Despite this fact law often interferes with a patients ability to decide the manner in which they die. Within America an ideology exists with respect to medicine, a belief that medical practice must be tied to modern science and that certain risks are involved when medicine is practiced in this manner (Palmer, 2000). Mankind believes that some sort of law must govern the use of technology and whether certain aspects of medicine like euthanasia should be institutionalized (Palmer, 2000). Unfortunately the law often sides against the needs of patients suffering from terminal illness, preventing them from seeking assistance when selecting their method of death.

Of course no sane person would prefer that someone would have to decide between suicide or life (Rogatz, 2001). In ever instance great care should be taken to help patients lead a life that is fully and rewarding to the best of their ability. Opponents have suggested that physician-assisted suicide turns doctors into killers (Rogatz, 2001). Realistically speaking however these doctors are perhaps more humane than others who might let patients suffer endlessly when no hope exists for a full recovery. Many patients may in fact look forward to life after death and all that pain free living has to offer. Perhaps this is the reason more and more patients are seeking assistance in their pursuit of physician-assisted suicide. It is important that doctors do not turn away from patients who do request their help, as this makes the physician more inhumane than if he assisted a patient in fulfilling his or her final request (Rogatz, 2001).

Physicians do have a duty to care for patients and provide palliative care and support when a patient is suffering a terminal illness. No one questions this fact. There are times however when a physician has exhausted all possible measures for providing relief to a patient, and it is at this point where the patient must decide how they would like to proceed (Rogatz, 2001). It is at this point where the physician still has a duty to relieve the patient of his or her suffering in any way possible (Rogatz, 2001). Many interpret this to meant the physician should assist the patient in committing suicide if that is the only recourse a patient has to relive their pain and suffering. This is in essence providing the utmost palliative care, completely releasing the patient from their suffering.

Patients last recourse when suffering a terminal illness is often declaring their right to stop life sustaining procedures (Hull, 2003). Patients are currently afforded the ability to put "don not resuscitate orders" on file if suffering from a terminal illness so that they may die in peace. It really isn't much more of a step to suggest that patients should also have the right to physician-assisted suicide. The two are quite similar actually, relieving a patient of their suffering. Physician-assisted suicide simply achieves this goal much more quickly. The ability to demand a physician aid a patient when dying might be the only recourse a patient has in the end (Hull, 2003). Because of this it is vital that health care providers and families alike step up for patient's rights and assure a dying patients last wishes are met.