Legalization of Physician-Assisted Suicide

...

of my life has become incredibly important. It has given me a sense of peace during a tumultuous time that otherwise would be dominated by fear, uncertainty and pain” (Maynard). She hopes that one day all of her fellow Americans have the alternative of PAS and expresses, ”If you ever find yourself walking a mile in my shoes, I hope that you would at least be given the same choice and that no one tries to take it from you.” Brittany Maynard passed away on Oregon’s “Death with Dignity Act” on November 1st, 2014 (Shoichet). The state of Oregon has put in place a certain series that must be obeyed in order to sustain the prescription:

The patient must make two oral requests to his or her physician, separated by at least fifteen days. The patient must provide a written request to his or her physician, signed in the presence of two witnesses. The prescribing physician and a consulting physician must determine whether the patient is capable. If either physician believes the patient’s judgment is impaired by a psychiatric or psychological disorder, the patient must be referred for a psychological examination. The prescribing physician must inform the patient of feasible alternatives to assisted suicide, including comfort care, hospice care, and pain control. The prescribing physician must request, but may not require, that patients notify their next-of-kin of the prescription request. (Darr 4)

In terms of the US Supreme Court, Justice Anthony Kennedy “determined that the CSA does not allow the attorney general to prohibit doctors from prescribing regulated drugs for use in physician-assisted suicide under state law permitting the procedure” (Darr 4). The World Federation of Right to Die Societies Newsletter declares, “It not only calls on doctors to make an unreliable prediction, but prescribes a pointless time limit: The longer the life expectancy the greater the patient’s suffering. The essential elements for legislation are that the condition is irremediable by medical treatment and the suffering is intolerable to the patient.” Therefore, no criminal liability is connecting any physician that provides enough medication to give relief even if death is a secondary possibility.

Supporters of the legalization of PAS use several justifications to authenticate and validate their logic and reasoning. Some say terminally ill patients deserve the respect to avoiding unnecessary, purposeless suffering and think considering it is a crime to force someone to live who does not wish to sustain their own life such as murder, “the crime of deliberately killing a person” (Definition of Murder). These supporters are mainly patients, family members, and, also, doctors (Johnson 3). In 2001, a survey to determine the attitudes of psychologists, psychiatrists, and physicians regarding PAS and inclination to aid approximately seventy-five percent were in favor of legalizing and about sixty percent were willing to carry out an evaluation if necessary (Johnson 3). Along with fifty-five percent responding and verifying that they would not oppose to assisting in other parts of the PAS process “if it were a legal practice” (Johnson 3). These studies and survey percentages go on to show that doctors have the patient’s best interest in mind and their compassion towards the patients who are suffering from no hope of improvement will find peace in the most humane way possible. The depletion of the standard of life is completely unique to every individual and their case of illness, and they are the only ones that actually know when the end-of-life decision is appropriate. When given the medication to commit PAS, the patient can choose the right time, place, and who is around while they undergo the effects. These factors provide a sense of control and the patient can change their mind anytime before taking the recommended dosage if they are doubting themselves since doctors do not directly inject medical muscle relaxers in the act of PAS (Snyder 3). Also, basing physician-assisted suicide solely on the choice of the sick patient (Snyder 1). The physicians are only there to support, protect, and do no harm to the patient while fulfilling his duties and challenges (Snyder 3). Every patient that decides to go through death with dignity should peacefully and restfully know that it was their own choice without having anyone interfere in relation to the choices made.

Some have argued, including the US legal system, that the medical profession and our society have a duty to secure the worth of human livelihood and shield the vulnerable members of the community. The Cambridge English Dictionary defines the Hippocratic Oath as, “a ​promise made by ​people when they ​become ​doctors to do everything ​possible to ​help ​their ​patients and to have high ​moral ​standards in ​their ​work.” Essentially, the non supporters object to legalizing PAS because of this. However, there are many different versions of the Hippocratic Oath that do not pertain to the current arguments due to the wide variety and different versions of the Oath. Taking the Hippocratic Oath a little too generally can have major dangers, but if the patient and doctor both come to the conclusion and conclude that relieving the patient of the terminal illness will cause less damage and trauma than continuing on the path of life, most editions of the Oath seem to support PAS in a type of way.

Creating a law of regulation with straightforward statutes on how accomplishing physician-assisted suicide is in everyone’s best matter of interest. With the patient making the desire and the professionals involved executing the request under the proper instruction to ensure the care and responsibility of treating the patient with dignity is an elementary principle that each and every one deserves. Regardless of what the critics say against PAS, the issue, terminally ill patients slowly collapsing to their debilitating illness, against freedom from intemperate agony and misuse of euthanasia with vulnerable populations will remain. Although treasuring life’s a special gift that daily, and making every effort e to conserve and maintain it, what cannot be disregarded is the obligation to end hardship, distress, adversity, and misery. Patients should ultimately have the power to go through with the decision to end one’s life personally and privately, accompanied by the doctors harming no one else, while not prohibited by the government or medical profession. “I would not tell anyone else that he or she should choose death with dignity. My question is: Who has the right to tell me that I don’t deserve this choice? That I deserve to suffer for weeks or months in tremendous amounts of physical and emotional pain? Why should anyone have the right to make that choice for me?” stated and questioned