Is It Morally Permissible for Physicians to Assist in a Suicide? Essay

The morals behind assisted suicide have been debated for years, yet both scholars and health care practitioners are still divided. The need to have control of personal life even when death is imminent due to terminal illness has generated new heated debate, and many people tend to lean towards legalizing the practice. While the majority seems to center on the need to have control over the timing and the kind of death that should be delivered, some warn against the potential abuse of the privilege by just causing another person death or harm on the longstanding prohibition against assisting suicide (Chetwynd 175). Concurrent with the ongoing debate but far much different from it are the arguments advanced in the medical practice, and ethics literature that assisted suicide is ethically legitimate under certain circumstances, but the law and professional standards should not be bent to authorize Physicians Assisted Suicide (PAS) (Morrison and Meier 48). Conversely, it is difficult to determine when it is ethically permissible to assist somebody to die. In this paper, I will argue it is morally permissible for physicians to assist terminally ill patients to terminate their lives under certain circumstances. In fact, I will utilize various lines of thought to argue for the moral assisted suicide by physicians. However, it should be noted that such situations must be extraordinary and the burden of proof must be used to qualify the circumstances as an exception.

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

Save 25%

Physicians have been accused in many occasions to act immorally when they aid their clients to terminate their lives. However, critical analyses of the moral principles tend to suggest that such physicians are within their proper obligations to terminate the perpetual suffering. Physicians make such decisions based on certain moral principles that allow them to end the sufferings of the terminally ill patients. The moral values that physicians apply to assist terminally ill patients to end their life include doing no harm, justice, and respect for autonomy, individual liberty vs. state interests as well as honesty and transparency.

Physicians utilize the ethical principle of doing no harm to make moral decisions concerning their patients. Not harm standard states that medical practitioners should act in a way that does not inflict or cause injury to others. In other words, medical practitioners should not cause impairment that can be avoided. When a patient is in the state of having no chance of survival, physicians are prohibited from acting in a manner that will cause immediate or long-term harm. In essence, medical practitioners are called upon to avoiding the risk of death to the patients at all costs. However, medical practitioners tend to agree that the principle can easily be violated with or without knowing (Morrison and Meier 48). The argument shift to the kind of action would amount to the violation of the principle. Among the medical practitioners, acts with no intentions to cause harm are not always considered as violating the value. In fact, in the ordinary circumstances, a medical practitioner does not just need to cause injury. However, those who have taken legal path tend to argue that knowingly or unknowingly subjecting patients or colleagues to unnecessary risks amounts to the violation of the principle (Chetwynd 175). What remains controversial in this principle is the extent to which that harm is defined. The harm ranges from physical to emotional. The same word may also mean violations of rights and deprivation of property. These arguments based on the terminology have little to do with the medical practice. Medical practitioners have experienced PAS differently from what is legally defined.

Within the health care setting harm is given a narrower definition relating to causing pain, disability or death. However, the problem can also be defined depending on the person who claims to be harmed (Karaim 86). As such, the broader definition of any impairment needs ethical consideration. For instance, a surgeon may decide to inflict more pain on patients to avoid death. In this case, the surgeon has caused pain in to avoid greater injury (Chetwynd 175). As illustrated, the moral reasoning is applied to understand the extent to which the principle can be applied within the practice setting.

Sufferings of individuals are due to several causes such as individuals may experience pain, physical distress, and physical discomfort. Relieving pain is one of the primary goal and moral values of medical practitioners (Karaim 86). The question that arises is whether the medical practitioner can help end the suffering of the individuals while at the same time protecting them and others from harm. Individuals seeking assisted suicide are suffering all rounds whether physical or emotional (Morrison and Meier 48). The other question that might arise is whether between leaving these people to continue distress and allowing them to die honorably, which action causes more harm. These questions need to be answered while making decisions when faced with such a dilemma.

However, it should be noted that the permission for assisted suicide should only be allowed under extreme circumstances of the unbearable suffering of the patients who seek that permission to be supported (Karaim 86). Under such extreme cases, it may be impossible to reduce suffering of the patient and the only compassionate choice one is left with is to relieve the person from great suffering (Chetwynd 175). Under these circumstances, it would be harmful to allow continuous suffering and pain than assisting the patient to die honorably. In other words, the conditions that would permit physicians to help the patient die are when no other alternative is left. Supporting the patient to die in these conditions is based on the principle of reducing the harm at most to the patient. The problem in these circumstances is continued suffering. It should be noted that at the point where the physician's consent to the termination of the patient life, all the legal procedures including the approval of the family members are fulfilled. In other words, all the legal processes, as well as other requirements, must be fulfilled.

Physicians apply the principle of respect for autonomy to make decisions concerning assisting their patients to die. The autonomy principle is based on the notion of the individual right to choose the best for life. Respecting individuals' right to choose what they feel is right for their life is significant for the physicians (Chetwynd 175). On the same note, supporters for the assisted suicide argue that the decisions for both time and situations upon which one would die are personal and as such, should be respected. Based on this individual right to determine own destiny, competent individuals facing unbearable and incessant pain should also have the right to choose to be assisted to die (Chetwynd 175). In other words, all individuals have the moral right to choose the kind of life they want or what kind of life they want so long as no any other person is harmed. That right should also be extended to that of ending one's life if they choose, in particular, when such a person is in great pain and suffering (Morrison and Meier 48). Therefore, when a patient who is terminally ill chooses to end his or her life, then that decision should be respected.

The moral principle of impartiality has also been used by physicians to assist their patients to terminate their lives. According to this principle, similar cases should be treated equally. Equal treatment means that physicians should not prejudice patients based on their personality, kind of disease or status. Equal treatment should be advanced to all patients. Patients also have the right to refuse medications at some point in their treatment process. Based on this argument, terminally ill patients have the right to quicken their death through refusal to receive medication (Morrison and Meier 48). On some patients, refusing medication will not terminate their sufferings and the only to end it is through assisted suicide. The principle of fairness is observable in the manner the patients are treated (Chetwynd 175). In other words, if on one side we allow the patients to shorten their lives through refusing medication while on the other we do not give the opportunity to end suffering through assisted suicide, then there is no fairness. Fairness must be seen to be working in all people whatever the circumstances. Besides, the physicians are allowed to exhaust all other principles or apply all the required ethical principles to permit the patient rights.

Physicians also consider other forms of suffering associated with terminal illnesses including physical, existential, social and psychological burdens. Physicians utilize the moral principle of compassion to make decisions based on the sufferings the patients undergo. Based on the moral principle of compassion, suffering is not just pain. For instance, terminally ill patients lose their independence, sense of self and functional capacities that in one way or the other jeopardize their dignity. Such sufferings are even greater compared with the pains such patients undergo. The reason is that it is not possible to relieve such forms of suffering. In other words, such miseries are permanent, and no medication can heal or end such suffering. The way to release the patients from such misery remains debatable even though physicians and the patients feel that death could be the only way to stop such pain. As such, PAD is the possible compassionate way of relieving such kind of suffering.

Individual liberty vs. state interest is also another moral value that physicians utilize to morally advance the practice of assisting terminally ill patients to die. In fact, one thing that is not disputed is the interest society has to preserve life. The argument is that no one owes life to himself, instead, to the immediate family members, relatives, and friends and to the larger society (Morrison and Meier 48). Based on this argument no one is allowed to terminate his or her life. However, in the case of terminal illness, no one has control over that life. In other words, the interest of the society to protect that life reduces in particular when the terminally ill has the strong desire to end his life (Keown 107). The societal interest reduces due to the little role they play in the illness of the patient. The patient and the family members bear the utmost burden of the illness. Proscription of PAD also denies individuals such liberty or control over their life. As such, PAD should be allowed under such circumstances.

Physician-assisted suicide occurs even when it is completely prohibited. The fact that PAD is illegalized in most states does not necessarily prevent patients from asking for such services or physicians from acting according to what they feel is right under the given circumstances (Keown 107). Besides, the illegality of the act has not prevented public debate over the issue and open discussions between the patients and the physicians. Therefore, it is critical, to be honest and legalize PAD to promote open discussions as well as encourage the better end of life care. The action would also allow physicians and patients to explore better options and address the patient concerns more openly.

Conclusion

Based on the arguments, it is moral for the physicians to assist their terminally ill patients to end their lives under certain conditions. However, similar ethical principles can also be used to support arguments against the physician-assisted suicide. In other words, in whichever way one might look at the PAD, the moral principles can still be applied to back such view (Keown 107). The doctrines of sacrosanctity of life, passive vs. active distinctions, probable...