Colorado, one of the first states to legalize marijuana back in 2012, approved a bill last year to legalize assisted death (“Colorado”). This came as a shock to many people not in support of assisted death, but, recently, more and more people have begun to support the idea of a doctor prescribing medication that will result in the death of his patient. As a quick background on information, doctors can’t just prescribe anyone these lethal drugs: the United States has set guideline for who is eligible to receive them. Patients must be terminally ill, have to be able to take the drug on their own, and, dealing with competency, must “have the mental capacity to know what they are doing and what the consequences are,” as well as make “two verbal requests, 15 days apart, and one written request with two witnesses” (Jaret). Additionally, more than one doctor must verify that the patient fits all these criteria. This ensures that the patient is competent to make the decision to end his or her life and also that the patient is not being coerced by a third party.
Assisted suicide should be a viable option for patients like Suzie Rodriguez. One of the Canadian Judicial System’s reasoning behind denying Ms. Rodriguez’s plea to have assisted suicide was that assisted suicide would “deprecate” human life (Thomas 215). I think it’s the opposite—people who have reached the end of their life and don’t want to die in an undignified and painful way should be allowed to do have assisted suicide in order to make their life as fulfilling as possible. Based on the principle of autonomy, patients should have the right to decide to die. Death is a major event in someone’s life, and if they aren’t able to carry out their final wish of how they want to die, then a medical professional should help them. I still believe, however, that doctors that don’t feel that same way should be able to refuse to ‘treat’ the patient. If I was a doctor in this position, I wouldn’t be able to carry out assisted suicide because of my own personal religious beliefs. Similar to the policy on abortion, doctors in this position should be allowed to maintain their own sanctity of life and refer the patient to a doctor willing to help them.
Many people argue that rather than suicide, modern medicine should enable patients to manage their pain instead of ending their lives. But what if in order to properly manage the pain, the medicine must be extremely strong and will affect the patient’s cognitive abilities and ability to have a satisfying, pleasurable, stimulating life? This starts to creep into the realm of deciding someone’s quality of life. I agree with previous readings that we shouldn’t judge the value of someone’s life based on our own perception of their quality of life, but I think that if a person thinks his or her own quality of life is below worth it, and they are terminal with no hope of change, then they should be allowed to have PAS.
Another argument against PAS is that it can result in a ‘slippery slope’ where involuntary patients or patients that are coerced are killed against their will. However, I disagree that PAS will lead to a slippery slope. As seen in the beginning of this blog, countries have already passed bills to regulate PAS so that only a very specific population of terminally ill, consenting, competent, and non-coerced people can participate in PAS. By instating bills like this, we prevent the possibility of a slippery slope developing. Weighing all of these factors, PAS should be legalized.
Works Cited
“Colorado.” Death with Dignity, www.deathwithdignity.org/states/colorado/.
Accessed 23 Feb. 2016.
Jaret, Peter. “Is Physician-Assisted Suicide Ethical?” University of California
Berkeley Wellness, Remedy Health Media, 26 Apr. 2016,
www.berkeleywellness.com/healthy-community/health-care-policy/article/
physician-assisted-suicide-ethical. Accessed 23 Feb. 2017.
Thomas, John, et al. Well and Good: A Case Study Approach to Health Care Ethics.
4th ed., Broadview Press, 2014.
Mihir,
I really enjoyed your post on physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia. This issue should be brought more to the forefront more frequently than it currently is being discussed. I think American’s are rather divided on this issue. I liked how you brought in Dr. Kevorkian as an aspect to this case. As probably the most well known figure connected to this issue, his opinion is important in this discussion.
I think physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia are a morally gray area that should be determined for individuals on a case-by-case basis. As an individual who believes in science and the importance of evidence and concrete facts, I think a decision such as this should rely on the patient’s decision to live or die, chances of survival, and quality of life in terms of functionality and pain. Every situation is different but specifically for individuals who are living with a declining disease, I think those individuals should have the autonomy to make the decision about whether to live or die. A disease in which dying is only a matter of time and everyday is filled with lots of physical pain and lack of independence is much different than an individual living with a disability who can function normally and just doesn’t want to live that way anymore. Like I previously stated, the hugely important decision of whether to live or die should be the patients. Another aspect of this argument has to be the competency of the patient in their ability to make a decision such as this. In many situations such as this, the patient is incapacitated and unable to maybe speak or express to a medical professional what is that they may want. I think that if a patient is competent then a decision such as this should be respected.
The fact that euthanasia is legal in other countries shows that it had been seen as morally acceptable. The duality of active vs. passive euthanasia is another difficult decision that requires defining intentionality. Overall I think a decision such as this should be made on a case-by-case basis and if the patient deems it as their decision and the physician agrees based on the individuals condition, euthanasia should be allowed.
Works Cited:
Beauchamp, Tom L., and James F. Childress. Principles of Biomedical Ethics. New York, NY: Oxford UP, 2001. Print.
Thomas, John E, et al. “Case 6.4: Sue Rodriguez Please Help Me to Die.” Well and Good: Case Studies in Biomedical Ethics, Broadview P, 1987.
Narbekovas, A., and K. Meilius. “Why is the ethics of euthanasia wrong?”Medicínska etika & Bioetika(2004): n. pag.Pubmed. Web. 22 Feb. 2017.
Hi Emma!
I think you accidentally commented on the wrong post. This is my post (Tori Risner, not Mihir). You might want to paste this comment on his post if you want to hear his perspective on your comment.
Anyways, I thought your comment had a very interesting point. I completely agree with you that PAS should be decided on a case-by-case basis, because no one’s life and situation is exactly the same. However, I’m not sure of the practicality of deciding on a case-by-case basis. For starters, I think there could be a plethora of legal issues if every single case was decided on its own. If I was a doctor, I wouldn’t be comfortable with participating in PAS, if it was such a grey area, and I think making it a case-by-case issue blurs the line even more between doing your duty as a medical professional and killing. Additionally, I think laws needs to be created (or already have been created, for some states) in order to speed the process of deciding whether or not a person should be allowed to participate in PAS. If every case was to be decided on, it would take a long time to determine whether PAS should be allowed or not. I think there should be a law that decides for most cases whether PAS is allowed, and then the cases still in the grey area that are not included in the law should be decided on a case-by-case basis. In the PBE book, Beauchamp and Childress provide 9 conditions for Justified PAS–I believe these conditions should be incorporated into policy-making and other remaining cases in gray areas (maybe if they don’t fit all 9 criteria) should be reviewed on a case-by-case basis (Beauchamp and Childress 184).
Work Cited:
Beauchamp, Tom L., and James F. Childress. Principles of Biomedical Ethics. New York, NY: Oxford UP, 2001. Print.
Nice blog post. I agree with your stance on how specific patients who are suffering immensely should be entitled to end their life through their autonomous right. Additionally, I would like to touch upon the statement you made regarding doctors’ stances on physician assisted suicide. You said, “Similar to the policy on abortion, doctors in this position should be allowed to maintain their own sanctity of life and refer the patient to a doctor willing to help them,” regarding PAS. Though I do believe physicians should aid patients in this process, there is a constant debate within the healthcare profession regarding the matter. According to the National Post of Canada, many physicians refuse to participate in PAS because their own personal values are in conflict with this practice, sometimes believing that their values are more important to them than those of their patients. (Kirkey) These religious or ideological values of the physicians who do not wish to administer PAS would then override the values of the suffering patients; is it morally right for the physicians’ values to trump those of the patients?
Work Cited:
Kirkey, Sharon. “Doctors Want Protection to ‘Opt Out’ of Assisted Suicide: ‘I Just Don’t Feel Killing Them is Compassionate’” National Post. http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/0429-na-opting-out
Hi Laura,
I definitely believe that it is morally right for the physicians to refuse to perform PAS if it is against their own values. Though we have discussed in class that law does not necessarily translate into morality, I think laws are good indications of what our society as a whole finds morally acceptable. There was a conscience clause created shortly after the decision on Roe v. Wade that explained that physicians have the right to refuse to perform procedures that go against their morals. This clause applies to more cases other than abortion, sterilization, or emergency contraception (what the clause was initially intended for), and includes cases such as PAS (Berlinger). As seen through the history of legislation, the societal views of controversial topics such as abortion or PAS is ever-changing–both used to be completely illegal. I don’t think that the physician’s values and refusal of aiding in PAS trumps those of the patients because, according to Adam Sonfield from the Guttmacher Institute, “nothing in this policy suggests that anyone has the right to withhold information from a patient or refuse to refer a patient to another provider” (). Based on this, I don’t think that this would impede on the values of the patients because doctors would still be required to refer the patient to a doctor willing to perform the procedure or prescribe the drug.
Works Cited:
Berlinger, Nancy. “Conscience Clauses, Health Care Providers, and Parents,” in From Birth to Death and Bench to Clinic: The Hastings Center Bioethics Briefing Book for Journalists, Policymakers, and Campaigns, ed. Mary Crowley (Garrison, NY: The Hastings Center, 2008), 35-40. URL: http://www.thehastingscenter.org/briefingbook/conscience-clauses-health-care-providers-and-parents/
Sonfield, Adam. “Rights VS. Responsibilities: Professional Standards and Provider Refusals.” Guttmacher Institute, 1 Aug. 2005, http://www.guttmacher.org/gpr/2005/08/rights-vs-responsibilities-professional-standards-and-provider-refusals. Accessed 27 Feb. 2017.