Physician-assisted suicide: when a patient takes lethal drugs with the indirect assistance of a physician to voluntarily terminate one’s own life in order to end the suffering of a terminal illness or an incurable condition. (eg. Prescription)
PAS should not be legally accepted because…
- Killing no matter how and why is wrong.
- Prescribing a lethal dose of a drug to end another's life is considered manslaughter by law. According to the Sentencing Council Manslaughter Guidelines, an unlawful act of manslaughter can result in up to 18 years of custody.
The International code of medical ethics states that “a physician shall always bear in mind the obligation to respect human life”. PAS is fundamentally contradictory to a physician’s role as a healer, and it also violates 1 of the 4 pillars of ethics: non-maleficence - do no harm.
PAS can be argued as an unfair way to end suffering because it is expensive. The average cost for PAS is approximately £10,000. According to a report by The Money Charity, 68% of UK households have less than £10,000 in their savings. Not all people suffering from terminal illnesses can afford it. Therefore, it could be argued that PAS is a luxury afforded exclusively to the wealthy; they can choose this alternative to relieve pain, whereas the poor can only continue suffering. This can be considered unjust because not all patients are receiving the treatment.
“Slippery slope” argument: PAS is initiated for people who have terminal illnesses, and once PAS is legally accepted worldwide, there could be a concern that the conditions could alter and become more permissive.
Catholics believe committing suicide or assisting suicide is considered a sin because it is against 1 of the 10 commandments – thou shall not kill.
Jews believe human life is sacred because it is given by God. Therefore, they are not allowed to do anything that may hasten death, even to prevent suffering.
PAS should be legally accepted because...
- Forcing patients to live a life that they don’t want to is a violation of the patient’s autonomy. They should be given the choice to end their lives legally.
- When faced between options of forcing a patient to live a life of intolerable pain and suffering or allowing trained physicians to assist them in dying with peace, the latter option is much more humane
- Disconnecting a patient from life support and signing a DNR form could both terminate the patient’s life, however, they are widely accepted in a lot of countries. PAS will also bring the same outcome, and arguably an even better one, as the patient will experience less suffering, so it should also be accepted.
- From an economic point of view, resources are scarce. The many resources given to a patient with a terminal illness or incurable disease will not help them recover. However, if those resources (e.g. A physician’s time, hospice, hospital bed spaces, life-support machines) are given to patients that will recover, it could be argued that it brings along a better outcome. PAS not only ends the suffering of a patient, it could also benefit other patients.
- Some places such as Luxembourg, Switzerland, Belgium, and the Netherlands already allow PAS. As long as the decision is made solely by the patient, free of emotional manipulation from others such as the suggestion of profit, ridding the responsibility to take care of a family member, etc.
Oregon Death with Dignity Act (DWDA) is a law that allows terminally ill Oregonians to end their lives through the voluntary self-administration of a lethal dose of medication, prescribed by a physician for that purpose. PAS is allowed in Oregon, but there are a lot of regulations that ensure physicians cannot agree to end a life easily due to any reasons and gives patients time to think through their decisions.
According to Oregon statistics, when faced with the choice of living while losing the ability to enjoy life, autonomy and dignity and dying, most people would prefer the second option.
In conclusion...
As long as the conditions for physician assisted suicides are strictly regulated by the government and the medical council, it should be legally accepted worldwide. This is because only the person who is suffering from the disease understands truly the negative impact it has on their life; others cannot relate to the extent of pain they are suffering from. Therefore, if the pain is intolerable to a point where one decides ending their life is the best and only decision, physician assisted suicide should be a legal option for them to die free of pain, with peace and dignity.
References
https://www.medicinenet.com/physician-assisted_suicide/definition.htm
https://www.wma.net/policies-post/wma-international-code-of-medical-ethics/
Benatar, D. “A legal right to die: responding to slippery slope and abuse arguments.” Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) vol. 18,5 (2011): 206-7. doi:10.3747/co.v18i5.923
https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/euthanasia-and-assisted-suicide/
https://www.hli.org/resources/types-of-euthanasia-intro/
https://medicine.missouri.edu/centers-institutes-labs/health-ethics/faq/euthanasia
https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/homicide-murder-and-manslaughter#_Toc3812581
