Case 8.3 centers around Sue Rodriguez, a Canadian citizen living with ALS. At the time of this case, she was thought to have a life expectancy of between two to 14 months. According to the prognosis, she would soon lose the ability to swallow, speak, walk, and move without assistance, and could eventually lose the ability to breathe without the aid of a respirator. Knowing this, Sue asked to preemptively take measures to request means to end her own life using physician assistance, but with her own hand, once she stopped living life to her standards of quality and happiness.
The dilemma in this case is whether or not physician-assisted suicide should be legal, and under what terms this legality should exist. In Sue’s case, the courts denied her request for assisted suicide, stating that the laws are in place to protect the vulnerable, and that human life must be respected (Thomas 184).
There are multiple approaches to this dilemma. The first is the approach taken by the Canadian Government—that assisted suicide breaches human life standards. The case states the argument that assisted suicide is unnecessary because there is pain management and care techniques to help one live happily, and that assisted suicide conflicts with a physician’s duty to help heal, not to help kill.
However, there are also many arguments as to why Sue should have been allowed to perform assisted suicide. First, Sue was autonomous when she made these requests. She was competent, and thus should not have her autonomy stripped from her. She is also on the path to death. In my opinion, everyone has different standards of what makes his or her life worth living, and a government can’t define exactly what those standards are for you. Should an autonomous and sick person request means to end one’s life when it reaches a state that is not up to his or her standards, and should they request to do it by their own hand, that is their decision.
An important aspect to this case is that Sue would have ended her life with her own hand. This parallels the Oregon Death with Dignity Act, which states that a physician may not physically end the patient’s life, but may write a prescription for a lethal medication at the patient’s request and the patient must decide to use the drug. This takes the “killing” aspect out of the equation, since the physician is not the person physically ending the patient’s life—the patient is. Furthermore, according to Beauchamp and Childress, keeping in mind the patient’s best interest is critical: “(Killing) is unjustified when it deprives the person who dies of opportunities and goods. However, if a person freely authorizes death, making an autonomous judgment that cessation of pain and suffering through death constitutes a personal benefit rather than a setback to interests, then active aid-in-dying at the person’s request involves neither harming nor wronging” (Beauchamp and Childress 182). They also state that denying a patient such requests might be disrespect (B & C 183).
While both sides of the argument are valid, Sue’s autonomous decision—and her willingness to end her life with her own hand—should have been respected, and do not fall out of line ethically once her quality of life diminishes.
Works Cited
Beauchamp, Tom L., and James F. Childress. Principles of Biomedical Ethics. 7th ed. New York, NY: Oxford UP, 2013. Print.
Thomas, Tom L., and Wilfrid Waluchow. “131-138.” Well and Good. 3rd ed. Broadview. Print.
I agree with your opinion that Sue should not have had her autonomy stripped from her by the government. She was competent in her decision-making and made the decision herself. She even specified that she only wanted the physician to help her end her own life when she was no longer living life to her own standards of quality and happiness. The problem I see with the case is where it states that assisted suicide should not be the means to an end because there are proper methods of treatment and pain-relief that can help one lead a happy life. I completely disagree with this statement because in Sue’s situation, she is going to die a unhappy death, and it is inevitable. If she chooses to let herself pass once her quality of life has passed that happy medium, she should have the autonomy to do so, as it will be relieving her of pain. Letting herself live will – in that instance – do her harm.
I would have to disagree with the opinions stated in the above comment which stated that the government does not have a right to intervene in Sue’s request to ending her own life. Sue does state that she wants the physician to help her end her own life when she was no longer living her life to her own standards of quality and happiness. However, I believe that that is not the duty of a physician to participate in such tasks. The physicians role in society is defined by preserving the life of their patients; assisting in suicide completely goes against the physicians role. Yes, Sue is autonomous in her own right to decide whether to end her life or not, but she should not seek the help of physicians. Whenever she decides to end her life, it should not compromise the values of another (i.e. the physician), she should seek to end her own life on her own time and away from a medical institution.