Many have heard about Physician-assisted suicide. This term signifies the voluntary ending of an individual’s own life by dispensing a deadly matter along with the facilitation of a doctor. This act is provided to patients who are competent with the primary intention of ending his or her life. Many deem doctor assisted suicide is in contradiction of a doctor’s key job as curer, and some believe that to end one’s agony is the better option. Only one correct answer solves this controversy. If a person is suffering a long-term illness, should they be able to receive help from others to end his life if he wishes? Physician assisted suicide should be legal in the United States to grant the wish of how terminally ill people choose to live their lives, and how they wish to end it. Physician assisted suicide has been a controversial topic within many fields such as politics, law, medicine, and ethics.
The history of physician assisted suicide ranges from the fourth century B.C. to present day. The Hippocratic oath stated, “I will not give a lethal drug to anyone if I am asked, nor will I advise such a plan”(Pickert 1). This debate has been in political conversation for over a century. Australia made physician assisted suicide legal in 1995, and then abolished that law two years after its legalization. Switzerland as well as the Netherlands authorized this law, allowing people to take their own life. Physician assisted suicide remains a rising issue internationally, but the focus is in America. In 1997, a ruling determined that US citizens do not have an essential right to this. In 2006 the Supreme Court voiced that this is not a federal government case, but each state’s government case.
In the 90’s a man named Jack Kevorkian, who is known as “Dr. Death,” had taken part in 130 assisted suicides where the patient would administer the lethal dose. Kevorkian himself administered the lethal dose to Thomas Youk, who was suffering from Lou Gehrig’s disease. He videotaped the act and submitted it to CBS, wanting the media to highlight the legality of assisted suicide. Kevorkian faced the consequences of conviction of second-degree murder, but was then released early due to terminal illness. Kevorkian’s wishes indeed came true, “His sacrifice did succeed in bringing assisted suicide into the public spotlight, as he’d hoped”(Latson 2). This issue has evolved especially since Kevorkian’s trial as Oregon, Washington, Vermont, California, Montana and Colorado have legalized physician assisted death or “aid in dying.” Current views on the issue remain controversial, but few states have begun the process of legalizing aid in dying. Physician assisted suicide should be made legal in hope of ending patients’ suffering and by raising awareness of this issue will not hurt the process of legalization in all states.
If a being is in incessant pain, no longer has the will to live, and wishes to end their lives, they should have that capability. If pet owners have the right to euthanize their pets due to unstoppable pain, then humans should have the same rights. So why don’t humans? People agonize due to terminal illness each and every day. Animals go through unbearable pain and their owners do not want to see them hurt anymore. Animals and humans should have similar rights to life according to The Nation, “We shall have to find some legal way to accord to human beings the relief we accord to animals”(Various Contributors 3). No matter the species, loved ones should never have to watch the ones they love die miserable. Terminally ill people do not want the last days of their lives to be in despair, just as any species would.
Those who want to pass have the right to pursue the rest of their happiness. The Declaration of Independence explicitly states that as citizens of the United States, “that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness”(US). Terminally ill or disabled patients should get granted happiness by being permitted the right to die with dignity if they wish. Why take away rights of people and their decisions based on how they want to live their own life? Patients should be authorized their own right to decide what to do with their existence. Geoffrey N. Fieger, Kevorkian’s lawyer, expresses the illogicality to limiting the merit of assisted suicide, by saying, “a law which does not make anybody do anything, that gives people the right to decide, and prevents the state from prosecuting you for exercising your freedom not to suffer, violates somebody else’s constitutional rights is insane” (Torre). Dying and suffering patients may be granted the ability to die with dignity if all states legalize physician-assisted suicide.
Living life to its fullest potential remains the best option for every individual. People suffering who have no hope for life should not be forced to continually suffer and go into debt if they do not wish. Instead they should be capable of living their last days smiling. People who presently suffer and who do not presently suffer can agree on a uniform idea, “More people would want to improve the quality of their life if they were terminally ill rather than lengthen it, according to a study”(Beckford 1). Quality over quantity has always been a positive outlook regarding a multiplicity of subjects. Individuals appear to place value on the quality of the time during end of life care. Patient’s priorities shall vary, but they all share the same idea in which they hold the condition of the end of their lives in high regard.
Persons involved in a terminally ill patient’s life, should consider the end of the road they will experience. When loved ones spend the last times with their terminally ill loved one, that time should be spent with happiness rather than observing their sorrow. Many argue the injustice endured by terminally ill patients, “Americans should enjoy a right … the right not to be forced to suffer. It should be considered as much of a crime to make someone live who with justification does not wish to continue as it is to take life without consent”(ProCon 3). Humans deserve the right not to be obligated to agonize in pain. Provisions must be created to ending the misery
Some doctors argue against assisted suicide due to their belief against killing as well as monetary reasons. Various doctors may act according to religion by following the commandment, “Thou shalt not kill”(Pickert 2). These doctors believe that there is a better alternative than resorting to assisted dying. Because God brought each person into this world, he or she must do the right thing and fight for your life. The medicinal field will not make as much money with deceased patients. Doctors do not wish to kill an innocent individual, “the right to die is not well received by Hospitals and Physicians because there is no money in a Dead person for them” (Ziegler 4). Assisted suicide is significantly less expensive than life supporting treatment, and this cost difference upsets doctors. But, if a doctor changes his or her perspective, they will not be breaking his own rules. If a patient truly is suffering, cannot function normally, and asks for help to end their lives that is not considered murder. A person who is young but depressed can be cured by treatment, but a late stage cancer patient cannot be helped improve their quality of life, but their quantity of life. But to withhold treatment is permissible which could cause death, but deliberately causing death is impermissible. Presently, there exists a sticky situation as to what conditions condone assisted suicide. To distinguish between a person who will inevitably die versus a person who wants to die, yet is capable of achieving a high quality of life, is significant. By helping a patient who no longer desires to live during terminal suffering and needs help dying with dignity, the doctor benefits by knowing he helped a patient die happily instead of in a vegetable-like state.
Imagine, if you were terminally ill, would you want to remain in unimaginable pain, unable to do what you love with the ones you love? The answer is most likely no. To prevent a patient from continuing to live an inevitable, undesired lifetime of pain, if they wish to end their lives earlier than expected, they should have the right. Physician assisted suicide should be legalized as a means of permitting a terminally sick patient to do what they wish to do with his or her life. Many believe legalizing this course of action will create corruption and distrust in the medical field. In a perfect world, hopefully in the future, there shall exist cures to all of these incurable diseases. But in the present, no such cures exist. By continuing to raise awareness, including regulations such as the state or condition the patient is in to prevent vulnerable people to involve themselves, this movement can create a wave. Tony Nicklinson perfectly demonstrates a case in which he was unable to live life the way he used to, and wished the state did not dictate what he wanted to do with his life.