An individual’s autonomy in the United States allows a person to
have certain unalienable rights
like freedom of speech and
religion. However, at the end of
one’s life, most
states have laws that restrict
the right to die with the aid
of a doctor. This is
also known as physician
assisted suicide. Hence, the question should be asked: Does every human being
have the right to terminate
his or her life? My firm
belief is that physician assisted
suicide is a policy that should be
allowed but taken
seriously. In the event of a terminal
disease, the patient should be allowed to die. However,
not only should a doctor sign off on this request, board members of a
health organization should
review the patient’s decision. A
counselor should be
assigned to this patient with
hopes of swaying his or her decision
by assessing their psychological
reasoning. By no means should
a person be forced to suffer through their last
days. Frances Kann
once said, “Therefore, when
death is a lesser evil,
it is sometimes
permissible for us to
intend death in order to
stop pain” (Globalreasoning.com).
This is
a powerful statement and
speaks to the
autonomy that terminally ill
people deserve. Now, on a broader spectrum, terminally ill patients
are easily justified, but what
about people that have
been battling with disorders
such as schizophrenia? This is very debatable,
but the
answer lies with the individual person. When people suffer neurological
disorders, such as turrets, his or her
life can be very painful to
endure. Personally, I am close to
a person with this disorder. Losing control
of your body can take a toll and
possibly make a person want to end his or her suffering. If the severity of a
terminal disorder persist, then the patient, doctor, psychologist, and other personnel
should determine if physician assisted suicide is applicable.
Physician
assisted suicide also has negative
outcomes that must be addressed. Doctor’s
must obey what is called “The Hippocratic Oath”. This degree states that we
should treat the ill with the best of one’s ability. Most pro-PAS members take
this statement less conservative. I believe that every doctor has the responsibility
to keep a patient alive. However, in the
event of a terminal illness, PAS may be what is “best for the patient” if they choose so. The next issue is
that corruption could occur by the
government and insurance companies. Terminally ill patients cost insurance
companies millions every year. Insurance companies could set up incentives for
families of PAS, which could sway a
patient’s decision. Physician assisted suicide
could open Pandora’s Box. In order to prevent this development if PAS was nationally legal, our country would need
restrictions and laws that would prevent this
from occurring. The final measure to account for is the families. When a love one is
lost, the families most often suffer the
most emotional pain. Additionally, a family member may not agree with PAS by
his or her religious background. If terms
of agreement are met among family members with the patient, then physician assisted
suicide may be permissible.
http://www.doh.wa.gov/YouandYourFamily/IllnessandDisease/DeathwithDignityAct
ReplyDeleteIt's so very hard to do absolutely NO harm, when seeking to prolong life. The oath should perhaps be modified: Do no more harm than necessary, in seeking a humane balance between the continuation of life and the acceptance of inevitable mortality.
ReplyDelete