Essay on Physician-Assisted Suicide Legalized in CA & DC, But Not Without Criticism

Recently, California and Washington DC legalized physician-assisted suicide. The enactment permits terminally ill adults to seek medical help in dying by self-administering a killing drug under particular circumstances (Neuman, 2018). Neuman notes the particular circumstances as; if the individual has a terminal illness that the individual as less than six months to live, the individual must be mentally stable, and all other palliative care options have been explored. The act has drawn criticism from various sectors in the countries' example is the Life Legal Defense Foundation argues that law could be manipulated to exploits the right of the vulnerable (Neuman, 2018). Perhaps the biggest argument in all this issue lies in the ethical premise of suicide, the debate whether life conditions could give in individuals a morally justifiable reason to terminate their life and, in this case, while being assisted by a doctor (Frey 1999). I hold the perspective that the act is both legal and ethical, borrowing from David Hume's ideology on suicide, I argue why man, under extreme scenarios, should be allowed to decide to end their lives.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

It is paramount to understand that the law is very precise and accurate on the circumstances when physician-assisted is permissible. Scrutiny into these circumstances reveals primary unredeemable circumstances where the individual's death is more practical than life. Perhaps, this is what Hume (1799) terms as a situation where suicide has no harm to society. An example would be a terminally ill patient going into critical care and has a life expectancy of less than a month. If all medical projection points out to the fact that the individual has such a short time to live and even the medical services being offered would not help prolong life, and the patient feels the extra days are just, but an additional cost on the family that could be avoided decides it only practical to die. Then they are justified to opt for a medically self-induced death.

Secondly, I believe man has been given complete control over their happiness by God. In his text on suicide, Humes (1799) highlights God, nature, and human interaction and how humans and nature have been given the deterministic ability to choose what they want. Man has been given the power to choose their happiness, and gods would not judge them since if the latter did not intend this to happen, they would have prevented the suicide-resulting actions from occurring. Consequently, man would be justified if they felt the current living conditions were too excruciating and unbearable that death was a better option. The ethical counter-argument propelled by those against this act is that it is not in the patient's best interest for a doctor to help the patient to die (Neuman, 2018). However, I believe that despite being sickly and probably vulnerable, patients still retain the power to choose what they want, and that should be respected in all instances.

An interesting observation by Hume (1799) on natural law questions the absurdity of human life on how an insect could take away human life, but man is portrayed as not having the same power over their life. And since most of our laws derive their background on natural law, then human beings should have power over their lives more than anything or anyone else. Precisely, this is synonymous with saying human beings have no control over their lives, yet other animals have the power to kill and harm them. Therefore, a law allowing terminally ill patients to decide when and how they want to end their life has been long overdue and ethical in all means.

Additionally, human beings in their daily endeavors partake risky and challenging tasks, sacrificing many things to make the world a better place. Such actions involve going to war, infringing on the rights of a few for the good of many, just to mention a few. These actions are not different from an action taken from an individual if they feel the world would be a better place after their death. This means then that if doctor-assisted death is the only viable option, not taking it is equal to surrendering to inaction (Hume, 1799). Hume points out that people's lives are their own to dispose of as they want because God has given them the power to and so only ignorance or superstition would hold one back from doing it when it is really necessary.

The ethical question of whether terminally ill patients have the sole mandate to determine when and how to die is a debate that would always remain controversial. This is mainly because of the diverse moral standing individuals hold on life and death-related issues. However, of the essence to understand is that as much as human life is sacred and ought to be treated with the utmost respect, there comes a time when death, rather than life, is a preferred situation. At such scenarios, individuals extensively briefed on their options and under no duress, should be allowed to make decisions they deem fit for their situation. And if medically assisted death is what they choose, then it is ethical to grant them their wishes.

References

Frey, R. (1999). Hume on suicide. The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy, 24(4), 336-351. https://doi.org/10.1076/jmep.24.4.336.5982

Hume, D. (1799). Essays on suicide and the immortality of the soul. Editor of the Collection of English Classics.

Neuman, S. (2018, May 24). Court upholds ruling against California's assisted suicide law. NPR.org. https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2018/05/24/613940700/court-upholds-ruling-against-californias-assisted-suicide-law