Objection to Medical Assistance in Dying Essay

Introduction

Medical assistance in dying has raised public debate over the past few years since some countries including the UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand to mention but a few have already legalized it (Edin & Kerrie, 2017). The debate over the issue goes back and forth about whether physicians should assist dying patients on their request or not. Some people are against it because of moral and religious reasons while others support it because they feel sorry for the dying. Physicians are also faced with a dilemma on the issue because of the practical and ethical issues involved in the practice (Edin & Kerrie, 2017). However, the primary concern for both practitioners and other people lies in the terminally ill patients. Most terminally ill patients are usually in deliberating pain during their final days, and they are inclined to request doctors to end their lives. It is true that these people sometimes go through agonizing pain because some practitioners deny them a chance to stop it through assisted suicide but making such a decision could be very hard for a physician based on the reasons mentioned above. It would have been absurd for practitioners to allow such an act in the past but with the growing list of countries executing assistance dying under legal sanction, it has become a common practice. However, that does not make it right and ethical.

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

Save 25%

Body

1) Background

a) The law

Legalization of medical assistance in dying (MAiD) raises a tone on complex issues related to both medical practice and ethics. Several countries including Canada, the UK, New Zealand and Australia have already put up policies legalizing the act. For instance, the supreme court of Canada authorized it on February 2015 by making it clear that it would no longer be a criminal offense for a practitioner to assist patients in ending their lives under certain circumstances (Li, Watt, Escaf, Gardam, Heesters, O'Leary & Rodin, 2017). Furthermore, the federal government amended the criminal code that authorized the practice of medical assistance in dying throughout Canada in June 2016. Besides, other healthcare providers such as Canadian Medical Association (CMA), registered nurses and pharmacists came up with policies that would help practitioners execute medical assistance in dying over the request of family members and loved ones as long as they comply with the circumstances stated by the law (Li. et al. 2017).

For instance, CMA supports government enacting laws that aim at striking a balance between three permissible deliberations: protecting vulnerable individuals by paying careful attention to their safety, respecting the decisions of eligible patients seeking access and creating an environment where practitioners can stick to their moral allegiance without compromise. Additionally, Canada has a covenant health policy that provides a stable ethical and sensitive approach towards medical assistance in dying. The system reflects on Catholic teachings and guidelines when responding to a person who requires help to end their own life (Gostin & Roberts, 2016). This policy helps those people who previously opposed the practice due to religious and moral reasons uphold the dignity of every person throughout the entire process. It enhances ethical, conscientious and moral objections of the exercise by ensuring that all persons are honored and respected by all parties involved in the method including the practitioners, regulatory bodies, advocates, funders and the community at large.

b) the debate

As mentioned earlier, there has been an endless debate about whether or not medical practitioners should have an objection to medical assistance in dying. Patients have had their own beliefs and practitioners have had their argument grounds. Despite this practice being legal in so many countries, some medical practitioners feel that there are practical and ethical considerations that have to be made before assisting a patient to die. For instance, under practical considerations, most medical practitioners who feel that they should object to medical assistance in dying argue that most acutely-ill patients are mentally incapable of making such delicate decisions (Edin & Kerrie, 2017). Acutely-ill patients may sometimes lack the mental capability to make decisions, and the pain they feel pushes them to think that the only way to end it is through death. Practicing assisted suicide on such patients could put the practitioner in a compromising situation because the patient does not meet the legal requirements for assisted suicide.

Besides, medical practitioner argues that patients with chronic illness like cancer and diabetes experience many physical symptoms and they have a more inferior quality of life thus they become depressed, which in turn leads to suicidal thoughts and sometimes a desire to hasten death. For this reason, practitioners argue that they have a right to object medical assistance in dying. To a great extent this is true and countries like Canada where the practice has been legalized they respect the freedom of conscience. This means that practitioners must be in a position to follow their conscience without any form of discrimination when deciding whether to assist a patient to die or not. Therefore, under no circumstances will a practitioner delay the process because they feel that the patient is unjustifiably suicidal. They should use their conscience and expertise to decide whether the patient's decision is justifiable or not. If they think the patient does not deserve assisted suicide, they can always object.

Under ethical considerations, some practitioners feel that assisting a patient to die is unethical due to the sanctity and value they place on human life (Holm, 2015). I believe that hastening a patient's death under their request is not permissible because although competent individuals have the capability and understanding of what assisted death practitioners to have a right to object should they feel that it is against their values and beliefs. According to (Holm) 2015, denying assisted death to terminally ill patients is a more humane action than to take their lives cruelly. Physicians are faced with the dilemma of balancing their autonomy with the patient's self-determined absorptions, but they should evaluate whether it is for the right intentions or not. It is unfair and unjust to compromise the health practitioner's autonomy.

On the other hand, most terminally ill patients believe that they have a right to medical assistance in dying because they see it as a means to face their death without avoidable costs and suffering. Some also believe that they have an inherent right to assisted dying. Thus they do not need anyone to authorize it (Gostin & Roberts, 2016). They think that healthcare practitioners, the government and the community at large should not take away their death wish because it just might be the liberty they need to pursue happiness. In my own opinion, terminally ill patients are not right because there is a reason the law is against assisted suicide. Judges choose a care system that is consistent with people's beliefs and values thus people should follow it (Gostin & Roberts, 2016).

c) Current trends

The past few years have seen tremendous improvements in healthcare that have benefited the society in many ways. The most significant trends include advanced technology that gives healthcare practitioners the ability to prolong life. For instance, most cancer patients today have a chance to live because of chemotherapy. It also gives them hope of having long dying processes than before. More so, most countries have adopted Palliative care, which focusses on improving the quality of life for patients with terminal illnesses (Edin & Kerrie, 2017).

2) Psychological aspects of MAiD

3) Patients

According to research, most patients do not choose MAiD more because of physical pain but rather psychological pain. Individually, the sure investigation by Edin & Kerrie (2017) MAiD legalized medically assisted suicide for people in their advanced stages of both terminal and chronic illnesses because of the emotional pain they were going through. 74% of the studied group suggested that they were seeking medically assisted suicide because of the psychological trauma that came with the terminal illness while the rest stated that both physical and mental pain contributed in their urge to seek assistance. In another research by Cha (2017), most people who found assisted suicide stated that their main drivers to make the decision where the loss of self-worth, depression due to a reduced quality of life and loss of dignity. None of these interviewees showed any sign of depression thus it is easy to overlook that the leading cause of the need for MAiD is psychological as opposed to manifest symptoms of physical pain.

4) Healthcare professionals

Healthcare professionals have a responsibility to protect and care for the patients, and when they go against that, there are moral implications involved. Executing assisted suicide could be very traumatizing for practitioners because of the pressure from the autonomy of their job and the needs of the patient (Cha, 2017). Sometimes they are not sure they are executing the practice for are the cause or not, but it is up to them to use their expertise and conscience when faced with such a burden.

5) Educational Opportunity

Patients with terminal illnesses should be trained so that they may know their options. As discussed in the trends section, there are other ways to prolong one's life and improve their quality of life such as palliative care. If a patient still wants to take up MAiD after he/she has had an opportunity for an education that is up to them to choose. However, all of them should be given a chance to learn and explore their options.

Conclusion

MAiD is a highly controversial issue as it touches on ethical and practical considerations of a healthcare practitioner with the same magnitude it impacts on a patient's rights to healthcare. As a religious individual, I am very cautious about personal beliefs and values of a Christian and taking one's life is not an option in our doctrine. I believe that it is important to explore all the options before assisting a patient with medically assisted suicide. Healthcare practitioners should not compromise their dignity and ethical considerations by assisting terminally ill patients to die because there are other ways to deal with the pain.

References

Li, M., Watt, S., Escaf, M., Gardam, M., Heesters, A., O'Leary, G., & Rodin, G. (2017). Medical assistance in dying-implementing a hospital-based program in Canada. N Engl J Med, 376(21), 2082-8.

Holm, S. (2015). The debate about physician assistance in dying: 40 years of unrivalled progress in medical ethics?. Journal of medical ethics, 41(1), 40-43.

Edin, F. R. P. C., & Kerrie, J. P. (2017). Conscientious Objection and Medical Assistance in Dying (MAID) in Canada: Difficult Questions-Insufficient Answers. Canadian Journal of General Internal Medicine, 11(4).

Gostin, L. O., & Roberts, A. E. (2016). Physician-assisted dying: a turning point?. Jama, 315(3), 249-250.

Cha, A. E. (2017, May 26). It's not pain but 'existential distress' that leads people to assisted suicide, study suggests. Retrieved from https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/to-your-health/wp/2017/05/24/its-not-pain-but-existential-distress-that-leads-people-to-assisted-suicide-study-suggests/?utm_term=.b15d38316d51