Progressively throughout this course, I began to question, “Why do people value life so differently?” Social interactions, past experiences, upbringing and diseases/illnesses are only few of several factors that sculpt the way we view our lives. Despite the struggles, hardships and obstacles we encounter, we are always told to keep going and never give up. Why? Wouldn’t it be easier to terminate our lives instead of enduring pain? Sometimes the easiest path isn’t necessarily the right path and we have to overcome obstacles to serve our purposes in our lives: to learn, to grow, to help others, to cure, to love, to nurture, to guide.
Background
The idea of legalizing, “physician assisted suicide” (PAS) has been a prolonged debate that entails several specifications that must be considered before siding with or against this option. “Oregon Death with Dignity Act” (ODWDA) enables physicians to write prescriptions for lethal drugs at the patient’s request. Studies have shown that only one-third of the patients who are given the prescription, get the drugs. Patients who are granted this lethal medication are not “vulnerable to intimidation or abuse” and “have had, on average, a higher level of education and better medical coverage than terminally ill Oregonians who did not seek assistance in dying” (Beauchamp and Childress, 178-81). Those who oppose this option argue that despite the appearing competency of the Oregonian patients, they could possibly be depressed. If PAS is legalized, people suffering for serious or debilitating diseases will be erased from our societies which will provoke the issue of determining their value and quality of lives. Healthcare is centered on the idea of protecting patients’ lives and protecting their right to life. As a result of legalizing PAS, it is feared that the quality of care for suffering patients will decrease. Those who support PAS argue that palliative care is a form of restoring peace to a suffering patient and believe that the right to live is equivalent to the right to die. Nevertheless, as stated in Beauchamp and Childress, the moral dilemma “is not whether physicians are obligated to lend assistance in dying, but whether valid requests render it permissible for a physician to lend aid-in-dying.” (182)
I’ve always been the student who promotes prolonging of life and found myself strongly disagreeing with others who believed that death was a viable option for patients. However, for the first time, while questioning myself if I wanted to live after suffering from an accident that has dehumanized me and has made me “endure a loss of functional capacity, unremitting pain and suffering, and an inability to experience the simplest of pleasures”, I’ve encountered myself on the opposite side of the spectrum and decided that sometimes withholding or withdrawing treatments that hasten death may relieve acute pain. (178). Then I came across the famous case of Dax Cowart.
Case
In 1973, Donald, a pilot in Air Force, and his father visited a small valley that was unknowingly filled with propane gas and when they ignited the car, an explosion occurred which severely burned both men. When someone came to help, Donald asked the stranger if he had a gun because he already considered himself a dead man and wanted to put himself out of misery; however, the stranger replied gently that he couldn’t give him a gun. While Donald’s father died on his way to the hospital, Donald was compulsorily treated for 10 months, which consisted of being immersed in a chlorinated bath and have bandages stripped and replaced almost daily. Despite insisting his desire to die, describing his treatment as being “skinned alive”, losing his ability to see, and losing more than 65-68% of his skin on his body, Donald was still treated until sufficiently healed. In 1986, Donald graduated from Texas Tech University with a law degree and subsequently opened his own practice. Because of his inability to see, Donald would feel embarrassed after mistakenly responding to his name when someone else was being addressed; therefore, he legally changed his name to, “Dax.” Then, Dax effectively sued the oil company responsible for the propane gas leak during his accident. He married twice and is currently still married to his second wife. This case is an example of preserving a man’s life against his wishes (despite having endured pain and suffering during treatment), who successively became a very successful and happily married person (“Dax Cowart”). Although not all stories result in such fantasy-like endings, it gives us hope that those who are genuinely suffering from unremitting pain and can only perceive death as their form of relief can be mistaken and become great leaders after treatment.
Discussion
When is the use of PAS morally justified? I believe PAS shouldn’t be legalized because we embark on a slippery downward slope when determining where the line should be drawn to permit physician to intervene in the natural trajectory of a human’s life. Even in the cases of terminally ill patients, such as Sue Rodrigues, who only have an estimated and limited number of months to live and would rather hasten their inevitable death than prolong their suffering, doctors have to be the reservoir of hope (Thomas and Waluchow, 214). Like Sue Rodrigues, Stephen Hawking, a world known physicist and cosmologist, was diagnosed with ALS and told he had only 2 years to live. He is currently 73 years old and is still considered one of the brightest men in the world (“Stephen Hawking”). My use of, as what some of you would describe, “miraculous” stories is not to portray the large probabilities of a well lived life after suffering from an accident or being told that you will have few days to live, but rather to enlighten the importance of hope for a better future. If a patient is severely experiencing pain then withdrawing or withholding treatment, and administration of prescribed pain medicine can be used; however, a physician must never prescribe or administer a lethal medication to end the life of any patient. A doctor’s duty is to prolong life and instill in people the will and strength to live because every life is valuable, regardless of disabilities and other disadvantages.
Works Cited
Beauchamp, Tom L., and James F. Childress. Principles of Biomedical Ethics. New York, NY: Oxford UP, 2001. Print.
“Dax Cowart.” Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, n.d. Web. 13 Mar. 2015. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dax_Cowart>.
“Stephen Hawking.” Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, n.d. Web. 08 Mar. 2015. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Hawking>.
Thomas, John E., and Wilfrid J. Waluchow. Well and Good: A Case Study Approach to Biomedical Ethics. 4th ed. Peterborough, Ont.: Broadview, 1998. Print.
I agree that patient assisted suicide should not be completely legalized because we risk a costly slippery slope for society. I do not agree, however, that patient assisted suicide should be outlawed entirely. I believe that if one has an extremely painful illness that causes slow deterioration, the patient ought to be allowed the choice of patient assisted suicide. This is an extreme case, but the individual deserves the right to choose whether or not they wish to incur the severe pain for years to come or end their life prior to experience the debilitating pain. Of course, there is still a risk of a slippery slope because how can anybody draw a line to determine what “extreme pain” feels like for each individual, but if reasonable guidelines were put into place, PAS in extreme cases ought to be legalized.
I would also have to agree that PA’s should not be legalized, you make some really good points about why it should not be. Your right to say that we would be embarking on a slippery downward slope when determining where the line should be drawn to permit physician to intervene in the natural trajectory of a human’s lifeI think in doing so we as a society are saying that is it okay to make choices about the the fate of someones life based on their ability to discontinue their life. I think it also can be looked as slippery slope. One in which the patient or the family may change their mind and there would be no possible reversal of what is done. And I think it also is not possible to say “well on a case by case basis if the patient is experiencing enough pain we should allow them to commit suicide.” Pain is to relative and varies for every person, doing so would leave to much free range on who was allowed to kill themselves.As I began thinking about this topic I question if legalizing PA could possibly put physicians in awkward situations which may cause them to compromise their own set of values it they do not agree with suicide?
Your argument on why PAS should be outlawed predicates itself on the idea on there being a slippery slope afterwards and the potential of ending the life of the next “Stephen Hawking”. While your points are valid, I was hoping if you could help me understand a different perspective on those issues. When dealing with the slippery slope, though theoretically a slippery downward slope may be established, it is much more logical to see that with any implementation of PAS, there will be regulations by the State to determine what patients can be assisted and which ones cannot. Medicine in today’s society, especially in America, has a large amount of red tape. Doctor’s are encouraged to look after themselves first due to enormous threat of malpractice and that often means giving greater care to the patient. Even if PAS was legalized, that would not change the doctor’s mentality on giving care. PAS will be most useful in those cases that assisted death proves to be a better outcome than living. Your idea of elongating life predicates itself on being able give choices. However, by not having PAS, the patient becomes deprived of their own choice towards ending their own suffering. I believe that patients should always have a choice on what their outcome should be and in the same token so should doctors. I believe that PAS should be legalized but should be regulated with clear qualification requirements for patients. These requirements could include patient consent, evaluation of the disease affecting the patient, reversibility of the condition, and future promise.
Ahyan,
I believe that PAS should not be legalized not only because of the slippery slope but also for my belief that there is a value in the sanctity of life. No one has the right to take the life of anyone except in self-defense which also undergoes restrictions and regulations. Even suicide is not acceptable worldwide. Terminal illnesses and disabilities will decrease the quality of life but not its value. I do not understand how doctors, or the State can generate certain restrictions to determine who should be assisted and who should not. You suppose that PAS will be limited to patients whom assisted death proves to be a better outcome than living; however, this statement besides being relative to every human and doesn’t form a solid base of restriction, it also encompasses many kinds of diseases besides terminal illness. Actually, after reading Margret Bentley’s case, and how she asked in her advanced directive not to be fed in case of disability, and how the doctors should respect her autonomous decision, then I deduced that indirectly doctors were assisting Margret in committing suicide as helping her to starve herself to death. Then, why not the surrogates of those born disabled won’t have the right to ask for PAS for their loved ones? Why not patients of Alzheimer’s, dementia, healthy people who get into accidents that leave them extremely disabled, soldiers coming back from wars with disabilities, cancer patients, mentally ill patients’, and more all should have the right and access for PAS. All of the above mentioned sicknesses that meet the requirements you have set for the restrictions of PAS: the patient or surrogates would provide consent as (Margret Bentley); the evaluation of all the diseases affecting the patient including (Alzheimer, dementia, disabilities, mental retardation, physical disability, terminal diseases) no reversibility of the condition as well as no future promise. Why not these diseases, besides many other terminal diseases, would be eligible for PAS? So you can see that things will deteriorate and doctors will spend their time writing lethal injections.
No one, not even doctors, can absolutely know how many days are left for a person in this world. I won’t give you examples from cases we discussed but from a case I experienced. My great aunt suffered from liver cancer and the doctors gave her two to six months to live. They even told her chemotherapy won’t help. She lived for four years and died out of pneumonia and not cancer. Every day is a blessing and sometimes sickness and disability brings about many marvelous things in the patient, to others and even to the world as Stephen Hawking. Doctors should be a source of cure and care when the illness is curable or controllable; in cases of terminal illness, doctors ought to be the sources of hope and comfort but not lethal injections.
Lara,
I think you pose a compelling argument regarding physician-assisted suicide. I agree that PAS should not be legalized because there is value in the sanctity of life. Terminal illness can diminish one’s quality of life and decrease the obvious benefits that come with the goodness of life, but I do not think that such terminality prompts a necessity or justification for PAS. We also encounter the ever-prominent “slippery slope” argument, as you suggested. It is challenging to generate a strict criterion that must be fulfilled in order for a patient to qualify for PAS because every case has its own idiosyncrasies and morally gray areas. There is merit in realizing when treatment is futile, but why turn to lethal medication when palliative care is available to those in need? Physician-assisted suicide may support a patient’s autonomous decision, but it does not promote nonmaleficence. The physician has an obligation to promote nonmaleficence by refraining from causing harm to the patient. Physician-assisted suicide allows for the ultimate risk, death, to reach the patient. Therefore, I do not think that PAS is morally justified and should not be legally sanctioned.