Should Assisted Suicide Be Allowed?

The contemporary society is full of social issues which have put people in dilemma. From gay marriage to right to abortion, biological warfare, right to own guns, and assisted suicide, the society still remains tangled about these issues. While there are several social issues, euthanasia has been of interest to me. Notably, euthanasia is the act of deliberately ending a life to release suffering and pain. The term typically infers an intentional termination of life by another person at the obvious appeal for an individual who wishes to die. This action has been faced with several and intense debates from the different sides who believe that their arguments and perceptions are the correct one. Opponents posit that deliberately ending a human life is wrong. This is because life is sacred and the endurance of suffering confers its dignity. Since nobody can give life, then no one should take it away. On the other hand, proponents argue that there is no more fundamental issue of individual liberty than the right to decide whether to live or to die. It also prevents or reduces human sorrow by relieving people who are in extreme pain since forcing people to suffer against their will is wrong.

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

Save 25%

In his opinion page on New York Times Ira Byock, a professor at Dartmouth's Geisel School of Medicine and chief medical officer of the Institute for Human Caring of Providence Health and Services highlights certain issues about assisted suicide. Titled "Doctor-Assisted Suicide Is Unethical and Dangerous", Byock argues that assisted suicide is wrong and immoral. In this editorial page, Byock outlines several issues that should be addressed in the United States healthcare system. First, he starts with statistics which show persist deficiencies in care and social support that is currently experienced by the old and terminally ill individuals as well as their families, friends, and relatives. he says there is lack of palliative care to handle the acutely ill individuals. Secondly, he states that provisions of medical act protect the defenseless patients and public from the power of doctors hence they should act according to the law as protection becomes their first and fundamental role. Additionally, he argues that when assisted suicide is legally permitted, the old, people who are not terminally sick and even the society will be worried that they will be subjected to premature deaths when they become critically ill. That is when they become extremely ill, doctors may see their existence as not worth and empathetically act to terminate their life. According to Byock, the pioneers of assisted suicide have stated that it is "off the rail" since the energy which should be used to protect the terminally ill people are channeled to assisted suicide.

According to his conclusion, Byock states that assisted suicide is ethically wrong hence health professionals should focus on protecting patients by focusing on palliative care and compassion. Particularly, physician-assisted suicide alters the culture of medicine and how it is practiced. It degrades the occupation of medicine by allowing healing tools to be employed as methods of killing. Likewise, assisted suicide impends to essentially falsify doctor-patient relationships since it decreases patients' beliefs on doctors and their commitments to health and life of patients. As such, health institutions and the professionals should do what they are meant to do. That is, the principle that doctors and health professionals must not kill should be upheld. Additionally, assisted suicide by the physicians would damage the entire culture, particularly the families and the intergenerational responsibilities. The inducement to perceive the disabled or elderly individuals as burdens to the society will rise as well as the temptation for the family members to see themselves as problems. As such, assisted suicide dents social commonality and the true compassion.

However, in his conclusions, there are certain premises that are missing. The author talks about the rights of people which should be respected. Just like abortion, there is an argument that every individual has the right to what happens to himself or herself as long as it does not interfere with other peoples' existence. This simply translates that if one decides to die, he or she should be allowed, especially when he/ she lives in pain. The author, therefore, does not explain instances where one decides to die. Should he be left live against his/her will?

Although there are missing premises in Byock's arguments, his assertions are sound. Assisted suicide is dangerous and should be prohibited in all countries. First, its most weighty prejudice is that it interrupts the dignity of humans and denies them the equality before the law. According to Battin, Rhodes, and Silvers (2015), every person has a fundamental dignity and inestimable worth. As such, the law must obey the dignity of every individual irrespective of their condition, color, nature, culture, and background. The law should do so having all sensible steps to stop the innocent people of any age or status from being killed or devalued. Categorizing a subclass of people as lawfully suitable to be killed infringes the nation's pledge to equivalence before the law. This shows deep insolence for and heartlessness to some people. According to Battin, Rhodes, and Silvers (2015), no natural right to assisted suicide exists, and the arguments for such rights are disjointed. In that light, any legal system which allow assisted suicide deserts the right to life of its citizens.

The soundness of this argument can also be determined on how the author provides an alternative to the missing premises, especially when a person is in continuous pain and ask to die in dignity. In this case, the author suggests that health care professionals should provide true compassion and care to the old and acutely ill individuals. Instead of supporting the physician-assisted suicide, individuals have the mandate to respond to the suffering of the patients by providing true compassion and care. According to Battin, Rhodes, and Silvers (2015), individuals who are seeking this kind of service suffer from acute depression, loneliness, as well as other mental illnesses. Therefore, instead of assisting to die, we should give them a reason to live without such sufferings. They should get suitable medical care and human company.

For people with physical pain, palliative medicine and pain management can handle their symptoms and griefs effectively. For individuals for whom death is looming, fellowship and hospice care can assist them in their latest days before they pass away. () states that, anything less of that falls below the requirement of human dignity. The actual challenge which is currently facing the society is to ensure quality end-of-life is available to everyone. Doctors and other health professionals should assist patients to die honorable death where the cause is natural but not assisted by fellow human being. This is because the role of physicians is care, but not to kill They appropriately pursue to ease suffering, and it is judicious to suppress or remove medical intervention that is not valuable. Conversely, to make a decision that a person's life is not meaningful and intentionally accelerate her or his death is unethical and does not obey principles of health professionals.

Conclusion

Byock's arguments are inductive because the premises support the conclusion in a manner that it is improbable the conclusion is false. That is, the conclusion has followed probably from the inferences and premises. According to the arguments, the author has given out several premises and reasons why assisted suicide is bad not only for individuals but also to the society as a whole. However, what makes it inductive arguments is that even though all the premises such as injustice to human dignity are correct, not all people can accept that since some individuals believe that respect is to their wish is the ultimate justice. Hence if they request to be killed such command should be obeyed to the latter since it is their body and they have the right to it. Following the arguments provided by Byock, it is important to conclude that assisted suicide is unethical and should never be practiced in any modern society. Man has no ability to bring a person to life hence should not end the same life.

References

Battin, M. P. (2015). Physician-Assisted Suicide: Safe, Legal, Rare?. In Physician Assisted Suicide (pp. 63-72). Routledge.

Battin, M. P., Rhodes, R., & Silvers, A. (2015). Physician assisted suicide: expanding the debate. Routledge.

Byock, I. (2015). Doctor-Assisted Suicide Is Unethical and Dangerous - NYTimes.com. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2014/10/06/expanding-the-right-to-die/doctor-assisted-suicide-is-unethical-and-dangerous