Physician-assisted suicide
The discussion on Physician-assisted suicide continues to be an ethical dilemma in the environment of health service. The suffering experienced by terminally ill patient makes most of them to contemplate dying since they experience anxiety. They arrive to such kind of decisions due to distressful emotions experiences and they often feel that they are a burden to the family and loved ones. They worry about their inability to manage pain and total control loss over the quality of their lives. The kind of experiences make the patients contemplate on physician-assisted suicide also known as euthanasia. In the United States of America, physician-assisted suicide is only legal in Washington DC and seven states. However there are considerable debates related to the implications of ethics of physician assisted suicide. The decision basis is formed by the patient’s values, beliefs, self- determination rights, and competence. Besides, the decisions challenge the physicians’ ethical and professional standards; there is always a divided opinion whether to assist a patient die or uphold and respect the right to life.
The United States of America comprises of different people with different cultural and religious backgrounds; however there is no uniformity of religious ethical and moral views regarding physician-assisted suicide. The right for physician assisted suicide is not protected under the 14th Amendment, and as per the ruling by the Supreme Court in 1997; the due process clause of the Constitution does not protect the right to assisted suicide in the county. The implementation and regulation of physician assisted suicide was directed to state legislation considering the cultural and social implications as concluded by the Supreme Court. The only eight jurisdictions that have legalized physician-assisted dying include Vermont, Washington DC, Colorado, Hawaii, California, Oregon, New Jersey, and Washington.
When discussing the ethics related to physician assisted deaths , it is critical to establish that the patients allowed to consider the decision for the PAD are patients whose death are imminent and no medical interventions can help the situation.
Since the federal law has transferred the responsibility of deciding whether physician assisted suicide is legal to state laws, the latter make decisions based on the beliefs of the majority within the state, precedent and case law. Therefore, the decision for PAD is left on individual, while their state laws determine the legality of their physician assisted death practices. Based on the Utilitarian theory, physician -assisted death is a right act and ethically appropriate since the decision is arrived at the interest of the patient. Besides, the family is not included in the decision except in granting the patient’s wishes. It is a greater good to the patient as the physician is prescribing and administering medication to be applied on a patient who abolishes the patient’s pain and suffering. Advocators of physician assisted deaths which are non-profit organizations in the country; Death with Dignity National Center and Compassion and Choices contend that patient autonomy assists in the reduction of internal stress and provides control till the end of life.
The patient autonomy principle provides that every patient has the right of making personal autonomous choice in regards to the treatment type, including injection of lethal substance that could lead to death. They argue that PAD takes away pain and suffering; patients do not have to suffer past the chosen limits. To avoid unnecessary suffering, and pain, patient have the authority to choose PAD as advocated by the proponents. There are argument that PAD reduces the burden of cost of healthcare both to the family and the national health expenditure. In addition, the proponents supporting physician-assisted death suggest that allows for donation of organ for non -terminal ill patients requiring transplants.