According to the national survey of physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia within the United States, public opinion polls show public approval for the legalization of physician-assisted suicide. Physician-Assisted Suicide gives terminally ill, yet legally capable of making decisions, patients the assistance of drugs at lethal doses to end their life. Physician-assisted suicide is controversial with many pros and cons outlined by Medscapes and Balanced Politics. The first point against physician-assisted suicide is that it goes against the oath doctors make to do no harm and solely to heal.[1] However, on the flip side, some doctors think they are doing harm if they let patients suffer and this does not provide patients with control. By allowing physician-assisted suicide, doctors gain excessive power over life that they could misuse.[2] This can cause ethical lines to be blurred. Doctors could end a life where otherwise rehabilitation or a miraculous cure could occur. [3] Balanced Politics makes several points that ring true both for and against euthanasia.
The first pro is that it can give life to others and potentially save lives as patients can donate their organs while the organs are still viable.[4] However, organ donations aside, others claim that allowing this type of suicide decreases the value of human life.[5] On the other side, sensible legal restrictions can be set into place that would prevent excessive use or misuse of the law, thereby maintaining the value of life.[1] Additionally, Balanced Politics points out that euthanasia helps the patient’s family and comrades face the agony and torment of seeing their loved one in pain. Instead, physician-assisted suicide could enable patients to take control, and end their own suffering, thereby putting a stop to their families watching the end to the pain of watching them lose their personality and turn into less of the person that they were.[2] An additional argument for euthanasia is it can save time. As there is one less patient, it in turn creates valuable time for both nurses and doctors that can be used to save patients with a more positive prognosis.[3]
An additional adverse effect would be that it could potentially change the viewpoint of family members. Viewing the disabled and older family members as imposing and deadweight shows a lack of compassion.[4] One other point some fail to think about is that the request for the lethal injection comes from a family of around fifty-four percent according to the national survey of physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia. Furthermore, people fail to consider that the request may include ulterior motives such as wanting possession of the property. Additionally, another issue raised due to monetary motives is that if euthanasia becomes legalized then people may be greatly encouraged due to the cost of keeping them alive. Many times, as a society it is not known that something known as passive euthanasia is occurring. This is where patients of poor economic status have to decide to stop treatment or turn it down altogether purely based on the cost-burdened that will be left with their families after their deaths.
This very issue has been raised within Supreme Court Judgements in India and it is not widely known the same issues are occurring within the United States and are not being brought to the attention of the public.
This also may be considered what is known as a “choice issue” similar to abortion, it can be considered a civil right to allow people to finish their suffering in more of an undisturbed way to die.
However, many proponents will agree that this skews the line. This is the line between the separation of church and state as some religions have clear opposition to the idea.
One of the many additional reasons is that many physicians are not prescribing so it is likely that even if legalized it will not be prescribed. Only 3.3 percent of the entire doctors surveyed have written a prescription for the legal dose of medications.
Another reason doctors are cautious to prescribe these medications is due to the doctor-patient trust that it can potentially skew the relationship. Potentially another issue that arises is the fact that within the healthcare industry it is a business so likely money-making could be a motive for death based on research collected the price of the drug for assisted suicide costs around forty dollars. Long-term care occurring.
This is where patients of poor economic status have to decide to stop treatment or turn it down altogether purely based on the cost-burdened that will be left with their families after their deaths. This very issue has been raised within Supreme Court Judgements in India and it is not widely known the same issues are occurring within the United States and are not being brought to the attention of the public.
Another reason doctors are cautious to prescribe these medications is due to the doctor-patient trust that it can potentially skew the relationship.
Potentially another issue that arises is the fact that within the healthcare industry it is a business so likely money-making could be a motive for death based on research collected the price of the drug for assisted suicide costs around forty dollars. Long-term care, however, can be extremely expensive even with insurance and according to research, it can cost in the thousands depending on the level of care needed.
Nevertheless, as I have carefully studied statistical and factual research I have become aware of a great dilemma this issue proposes. Thus, in the final analysis of both the positives and negatives the positives outweigh the negatives for me, and ethically, if, of sound mind, we all deserve to control our own lives. People may die before their bodies ever do when their personality dies through enduring the suffering of a terminal illness. I would like to know that I have security in deciding my own fate if I am ever faced with waning time. I believe that a person’s right to personal dignity and self-determination outweighs the arguments against euthanasia. Furthermore, many people may say that physician-assisted suicide violates religious grounds. However, it should be up to the patient as we have the freedom to practice religion in the United States. Given religious freedom, why should we not have that freedom to make decisions based on religion if we so choose? Ultimately this issue is about having complete control of your own body as well as your life. I sincerely believe in self-determination as a right for all. Also, I believe in self-sacrifice as all patients should have the option to help their families by freeing the financial burden placed upon their families. Or the other option is to be able to close off the suffering their families have to endure due to their declining condition and save themselves from inevitable all-encompassing pain. Having the choice gives patients peace in their final weeks. As an alternative to fearing for themselves and their family. As well as freedom from being in pain that is unable to be eased completely for some there comes a point where they cannot continue however can be extremely expensive even with insurance and according to research, it can cost thousands depending on the level of care needed.