This topic is very controversial in the medical field, and for good reason. I work as a caregiver for the elderly, and I have seen someone try to end their life through refusing to eat. This was approved by a doctor, and it was heartbreaking to watch this man suffer. I am for physician-assisted suicide, but it does not mean that it is a hard topic that is often taboo.
Physician-assisted suicide is a heavily debated topic in the medical field, with many on divided sides. On one side, physicians say it is morally erroneous and against their sacred Hippocratic Oath to assist in suicide. They do not want to do harm to the patient, and would rather let them die naturally, on their body’s own accord. Opposite to them, many are responding that it is more humane to put someone out of their suffering, that it is a physician's job to help the patient with succor, instead of focusing on the physician's emotions or morality. However, while it seems like the two sides are incompatible, there is a common ground that they can allot to each other.
When students in the medical field graduate, they take a centuries-old oath, named the Hippocratic oath. It states that you cannot do harm to your patient, and many doctors live by this statement religiously. When physician-assisted suicide (PAS) was ruled legal in Oregon in 1998, it was unorthodox. Doctors and citizens across the nation were shocked that we could allow the people that were supposed to help us to be legally capable of taking a life.
“As Daniel P. Sulmasy, MD, Ph.D., noted, “Despite public arguments that PAS is needed to avoid excruciating pain and other symptoms, the reasons attributed to patients who seek PAS are not uncontrolled symptoms but lost autonomy, independence, and control.”3,16 These are forms of psychological distress which, in our view, are best managed with supportive and empathic counseling and/or cognitive behavioral interventions, provided to patients and their families—not by prescribing lethal drugs.” (Pies et al.)
Medical professionals stress that the many reasons that people seek out assisted suicide are treatable and that they are just suffering from mental illness.
“This means erring on the side of caution and treating MAID requests from patients with terminal illnesses with the same degree of psychiatric scrutiny and concern that we would bring to any patient’s expressed wish to die. However, in most states, psychiatric assessment is not mandated in the MAID process and does not occur unless specifically requested by the evaluating physician who has initiated the MAID process.” (Pies et al.)
Ordinarily, when a person expresses a certain wish to die, they are placed in psychiatric care, and they are not taken seriously. But, in some states, in specific cases where the patient has six months or less to live, the rules change. Those being, the patient must make two spoken requests to be assisted in the dying process at least 15 days apart. They are required to have a written request that is signed by two witnesses, and not only does the prescribing physician have to validate, but another physician as well. They have to come to an agreement that the patient is competent, and if one or both of them does not agree, then the patient has to be reviewed for mental illness before they can move forward with the process of PAS. With these steps, the physician must also inform the patient in question of all the other options. The final step is that the physician must ask the patient to notify their closest relatives of their decision.
“According to an American College of Physicians position paper written in 2017, physician assisted suicide is “physician participation in advising or providing, but not directly administering, the means or information enabling a person to intentionally end his or her life” (Sulmasy & Mueller, 2017). This does not entail the physician to actively murder or kill his/her patient, rather it is the physician providing the resources and manner in which a patient can actively kill him or herself.” (Wilson 3)
She is arguing that while the physician is providing the means to end the patient's life, they are not actively in the process of killing them. For example, you can give someone a gun that they wanted as a present, but you are not firing the bullet that puts an end to their life.
Unearthing a common ground between these rival sides can seem unfathomable, but with proper education for both sides of the argument, and an open mind, it’s within reach. Physician-assisted suicide is a very minacious act and must be done with the utmost care and safety regulations to make sure tragedy does not strike. Taking Oregon's legislation as a guideline is a superb start since it has extremely strict rules on PAS. The patient who has requested lethal medication has to be within six months of dying, which is a sound rule since doctors are allowed to take a person off of life support. Both sides can agree that the rule that has the patient screened for psychological fallacies is an adequate prevention measure against unneeded lethal medication, and can afford patients some necessary assistance. The antagonistic sides can also rectify that having two physicians converse about the patient's wishes and having them come together to make a resolution is good practice since two minds can easily see over each other's errors in judgment. Physician-assisted suicide can be a frightening thing to allow, but all facets of the sides can come together and reach a common ground that benefits and has both sides’ concerns heard.
Works Cited
Pies, Ronald W., et al. “Against Assisted Suicide.” Psychiatric Times, 8 July 2021,
https://www.psychiatrictimes.com/view/against-assisted-suicide. Accessed 14 December 2022.
Wittwer, Hector. “Yes, Physician Assisted Suicide is Ethical.” DigitalCommons@SHU, https://digitalcommons.sacredheart.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1582&context=acadfest. Accessed 14 December 2022.
Add comment
Comments
Very insightful