Human life is held in high regard. For this reason, death whilst being a part of life remains a touchy subject. Although loss of life whether voluntary or involuntary leave many uncomfortable, conversations of a certain kind of death seem to increase. The controversy of physician-assisted suicide has erupted in a heated discussion. The real argument, however, lies in that of morality versus free-will. Those who reject physician-assisted suicide resolve that it is morally wrong. They believe that free-will has it limits. Just as how laws are put in place to protect ourselves and also those around us, so should limits be placed on assisted death. The supporters of physician-assisted suicide point that it is the choice of the terminally-ill patient to be cured with the finality of death rather than suffer through their current, yet seemingly never-ending circumstances. Both opponents and supporters of the debate maintain solid reasoning for their position as to why or why not the assisted suicide of terminally ill patients should be legal.
Adversaries to physician-assisted suicide point that this kind of death lacks human dignity and that natural death is much more dignified. According to an article by Ryan Anderson, “Physician-Assisted Suicide Compromises the Family and Intergenerational Obligations” a woman’s husband decided against assisted suicide. Instead of dying in the predicted time, her husband ended up living 15 more months. He was able to make more memories and spend time with his family in his dying years. He lived surrounded by family and died surrounded by family, to her this is a dignified death. She explained that she witnessed patients who choose to take the physician-assisted suicide route and their life ended with an empty pill bottle and an empty hospital room. She felt the patient had given up and had not died a true death. As with suicide in general, many view assisted suicide as an easy out or an escape. Those against this form of death believe that we should acknowledge that death is a part of life, and completing the full circle of life means dying a true death.
Another point contradicting physician-assisted suicide is that it can corrupt the medical industry, and already has. In the “Remmelink Report”, which exposes that the euthanasia procedures in the Netherlands, proves, “…that involuntary euthanasia (including deliberate drug overdoses) is practiced on a wide scale, that physicians routinely misrepresent the cause of death of patients who have been “euthanatized”” (Linton). Reports like this worry medical professionals. They believe that physician-assisted suicide will cause a slippery slope. Doctors accepting voluntary and consented requests for death while lead to a total disregard for human life. In time, assisted death will be seen as the easy way out to medical professionals, who will then use their authority to involuntarily euthanize their patients.
Ryan Anderson in “The Alternative to Physician-Assisted Suicide” suggests solutions replacing physician-assisted death. Anderson believes that instead of helping their suicidal patients kill themselves, doctors should offer them other forms of treatments. He also notes that the pains many suicidal patients feel are emotional, “In Oregon Health Authority research, 91 percent of those who were assisted with suicide cited loss of autonomy as their motivation to end their lives, and 71 percent cited loss of dignity as their motivation. Only 31 percent cited inadequate pain control. These needs require different forms of care.” Anderson asserts that palliative care and hospice care can care for both the emotional and physical pains of the patient. He also reasons that support from family can give the patient motivation. Showing compassion to terminally ill family members and not treating them as a burden can increase their regard for their life. Anderson believes that these methods are safer and less permanent to treat terminally ill patients than physician-assisted death.
Though this information may sound convincing, Christian Nordqvist in “Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide” provides reasoning supporting physician-assisted suicide. Nordqvist argues that the patients have freedom of choice. By this he means that individual autonomy of the patient should combat the authority of the medical doctors, “In many countries, including the U.S., a patient can refuse treatment that is recommended by a health professional, as long as they have been properly informed and are “of sound mind.”” Nordvqist believes that as long as the patient is competent, they should be able to make decisions for themselves, even ones associated with their health. He then turns the points of compassion and morality used by the opponents of assisted death around to support his position. He asserts that it is inhumane to force a terminally ill patient to suffer through their pain without being able to choose to end that pain. It is more compassionate and moral to allow them to die how they see fit.
Likewise, Howard Ball in “Physician Assisted Death in America” argues that the patient has the absolute right to decide his own fate. “Their illness prevents them from leading the life they had…They experienced social death and did not want to spend many months, in some cases years, awaiting biological death. They believe they have the constitutional liberty to take their life.” Ball advocates for the individual contains the absolute right to choose death if they want to. Also, it is the doctor’s duty to relieve the patient of pain and suffering. To Ball, physician-assisted suicide does more good than harm. He thinks that it is unfair that doctors are criminalized and punished when aiding their patient in death. He predicts that in the future people will view physician assisted death as a “less worse death” and that laws will be made to protect this right.
On a different note, Jacob M. Appel in “Next: Assisted Suicide for Healthy People” explains the even more controversial view that healthy people have a right to assisted death too. Firstly, Appel agrees that disallowing physician-assisted death is wrong, “…in cases where these victims express an ongoing and rational desire to die, but are physically incapable of ending their own lives. To deny such patients assistance is, to my own thinking, a form of torture by inaction.” Appel advocates for the right of the fully-competent, terminally ill to die. This view is then stretched to the fully-competent, healthy person’s right to die. Both supporters and adversaries of the physician-assisted suicide are weary of this view. Supporters believe that this view will scare the opposition farther away for physician-assisted suicide as a whole. Adversaries point back to their position of the slippery slope. Appel states that, “A free society, to be truly worthy of that name, owes her, and other healthy, competent individuals with similar wishes, the right to live and to end their lives on their own terms.” He believes that the best person to determine one’s destiny is the person themselves.
In summary, the controversy of physician-assisted suicide is more rampant that it has been in previous years. Neither side seems to give up their position. Opponents maintain that, “Doctors should help their patients die a dignified natural death, but doctors should not assist in killing or self-killing. Physicians are always to care, never to kill” (Anderson, The Alternative). They believe that social morality should limit individual free will. Supporters declare that “Individual choice should not yield to societal preference simply because the question is no longer how to live, but how to die” (Appel). They believe choice supersedes everything. Hopefully, in the future a middle ground will be established for the debate of physician-assisted suicide.
Works Cited
Anderson, Ryan. “The Alternative to Physician-Assisted Suicide: Respect Human Dignity and Offer True Compassion.” The Heritage Foundation, www.heritage.org/health-care- reform/report/the-alternative-physician-assisted-suicide-respect-human-dignity-and.
—. “Physician-Assisted Suicide Compromises the Family and Intergenerational Obligations.” The Heritage Foundation, www.heritage.org/health-care-reform/report/physician-assisted-suicide-compromises-the-family-and-intergenerational.
Appel, Jacob M. “Next: Assisted Suicide for Healthy People.” HuffPost, HuffPost, 25 May 2011, www.huffpost.com/entry/assisted-suicide-for-heal_b_236664.
Ball, Howard. “Physician Assisted Death in America: Ethics, Law, and Policy Conflicts.” Cato Unbound, 22 Mar. 2013, www.cato-unbound.org/2012/12/10/howard-ball/physician- assisted-death-america-ethics-law-policy-conflicts.
Linton, Paul Benjamin. “BETTER SOLUTIONS THAN ASSISTED SUICIDE.” Chicagotribune.com, 1 Sept. 2018, www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-xpm- 1993-12-26-9312260140-story.html.
Nordqvist, Christian. “Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide: What Are They and What Do They Mean?” Medical News Today, MediLexicon International, 17 Dec. 2018, www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/182951.php.
