Euthanasia

Victoria Perez For many centuries dating back to the Greek era, it has never been ethical for doctors to harm people intentionally. The “father of medicine”, Hippocrates, stated a certain pledge around 400 B.C. which has been renowned all over the world. This vow was the Hippocratic Oath, which states that doctors will not give deadly medicine to anyone even if asked; nor suggest any such counsel to harm their patients. “I will not give a lethal drug to anyone if I am asked, nor will I advise such a plan” (The Hippocratic Oath). Every doctor must take this oath before becoming a doctor. No matter what the situation, PAS is not ethical and does not hold doctors to their professional standards. Euthanasia is the practice of painlessly putting to death of people who have incurable, painful, or distressing diseases or handicaps. ‘Euthanasia’ comes from the Greek words for 'good' and 'death', and is commonly called mercy killing. Euthanasia may occur when an incurably ill person asks their physician, friend or relative, to put them to death. A considerable size of society is in favor of Euthanasia mostly because they feel that as a democratic country, we as free individuals have the right to decide for ourselves whether or not it is our right to determine when to terminate someone's life. The Hippocratic Oath also directly says that no physician can take a human life intentionally. “…I will neither prescribe nor administer a lethal dose of medicine to any patient even if asked not counsel any such ting not perform the most disrespect for every human life from fertilization to natural death and reject abortion that deliberately takes a unique human life” (The Hippocratic Oath). Major medical profession groups such as American Medical Associate (AMA) and American Geriatrics Association (AGS) strongly oppose physician-assisted suicide. The overall concern of these two large medical associations is that “…linking PAS to the practice of medicine could harm the public image of the medical profession” (Collections for Journal of the American Geriatrics Society). The American Medical Association has approved the withdrawing of treatment. A medical intervention is either not given or the ongoing use of the intervention is discontinued, allowing natural progression of the underlying diseases state. The use of machines, water or food to keep a person alive can be withheld, upon the request of the patient. Ultimately, the goal for a physician/patient relationship has been to comfort and cure. If this relationship is changed, to say that comfort will include the termination of life, PAS could definitely weaken the trust between the patient and the physician. This expectation is a significant element of a doctors’ obligation under the Hippocratic Oath, “I will use those dietary regimens which will benefit my patients according to my greatest ability and judgment, and I will do no harm or injustice to them” (The Hippocratic Oath). The main reason for the use of physician-assisted suicide is supposedly to give compassion and to care for the terminally ill patient. Case and point, physician assisted suicide is said to be ethical because it is used to end suffering to the patient. The suffering of a patient is more than just pain: it is also a physical and psychological burden. Another way of relieving suffering altogether, however, is sedating the patient so that he/she does not have to undergo any pain or psychological worries. While they are sedated the patient can be given the nutrition and hydration that is needed to survive. Physician assisted suicide (PAS) is when the doctor gives the patient a lethal dose of medicine, by the request of the patient. There is an important difference between passively "letting die" and “actively killing”. To ‘kill’ is with the intentional cause to die. ‘Letting die’ is to knowingly fail to prevent from dyeing. The American Medical Association (AMA) has come to the conclusion that turning off life support machines is constitutional. The AMA does not find physician assisted suicide justifiable. Withholding and withdrawing life prolonging medical treatment from a competent patient is legal. Withholding the use of IV’s that feed and keep the patients hydrated is justifiable. Without the IV machines it would not be possible for the patient to survive. Respirators also keep patients alive; this machine helps the patient to breath. Without this machine many people would die. If these machines were not even in existence then many people could not survive on their own. For a patient to refuse to use life prolonging machines is justifiable because if someone wants to die of natural causes then they should be allowed to. Physician Assisted Suicide is an unnatural death. A lethal dose of medication given to patients is used to “kill” them. Killing of any kind is not constitutional and is viewed in the eyes of the public as a horrible crime. PAS is actively killing people without even giving them the benefit of the doubt. By allowing physician assisted suicide to be an option in this medical profession will cut back the number of lives that can be saved. Emotional and psychological pressures could become overpowering for depressed or dependent people. If the choice of euthanasia is considered as good as the decision to accept care, many people will regret or even feel guilty for not choosing death. Financial considerations, added to the concern about "being a burden," could serve as powerful force that would lead a person to "choose" euthanasia or assisted suicide. Patients will see this option as a way to keep their loved ones out of debt. Some will be forced to choose PAS because of their financial state. The elderly and the poor will be the ones that PAS will affect the most. PAS is just not a logical way to end suffering. Medication should be used to end patients suffering. Letting patients die is ethical because without the machine helping them survive, living wouldn’t be possible. PAS is just as bad as murdering another person and getting away with it. Society does not accept this way of thinking. As long as society continues to value life highly physician assisted suicide will not be allowed in the U.S. Although euthanasia can be used to help patients with the unbearable pain it really is just too impracticable for many reasons. There are many potential stake holders when it comes to physical assisted suicide. Stake holders are people that have the capability to lose something valuable with the outcome of another’s actions. Patients are the most important stake holders, when it comes to physician assisted suicide (PAS) because one decision could be the end or a chance to strive for life. Although patients are the highest stake holder families are potential stake holders as well. Families feel the repercussions of the patient’s decision. Doctors seem to be the second highest stake holder. Doctors have to live with the decision to assist to actively kill a patient, could even lose their license to practice medicine. Patients have the most to lose or gain when making such an extreme choice: to commit suicide or strive to live. Physician assisted suicide has the possibility to bring death to patients that still have a chance to live. A patient’s decisions can cause devastation among loved ones. “We were concerned that vulnerable people - the elderly, lonely, sick or distressed- would feel pressure, whether real or imagined, to request early death” (Lord Walton, Chairman, House of Lords Select Committee on Medical Ethics, 1993). PAS triggers stress within the patient to make a ‘the right decision’. The pressure whether to live and fight through the pain or to die a painless death brings the patients a lack of certainty. Families are the type of stake holder that feels the effects of what the patient decides to do; their emotions are tied to the patient and what happens to them. Patients could affect their family by making the tough decision to carry out PAS and leave their loved ones behind, before it’s time for them to go. Families also have to make the decisions if the patients are not capable to. Families are most emotionally affected by the outcome of the patient. Doctors have many things to lose when it comes to euthanasia. The doctor has to live with the decision to help another person to commit suicide. If the law finds that the doctor’s practices are unethical then the doctor’s license to practice medicine could get taken away. The doctor vows to protect life with the Hippocratic Oath when becoming a doctor, PAS counters this Oath. One decision made by the patient may perhaps be the end of their life or could be the opportunity to endeavor life. “If those advocating assisted suicide prevail, it will be a reflection that as a culture we are turning away from efforts to improve our care of the mentally ill, the infirm, and the elderly. Instead, we would be licensing the right to abuse and exploit the fears of the ill and depressed. We would be accepting the view of those who are depressed and suicidal that death is the preferred solution to the problems of illness, age and depression” (Baird, M. Robert). Families are the ones that feel the repercussions of patient’s decision the most. There has to be other options rather than killing the victim to be the solution. Doctors have to live with the decisions to help a patient commit suicide. If the courts find euthanasia is not constitutional doctors could lose their license and go to jail. There are many different arguments that support euthanasia. It is said that modern medicines now a days have made it so that people live to be older, this makes it so that there is a higher percentage rate that are incapable of taking care of themselves. Another strong argument for euthanasia is that people with terminal illness should be allowed to die a dignified death. Patience should not have to undergo such unbearable pain. The last argument that is highly supported by people that are for physician assisted suicide is that a patient should be allowed to choose how they want to die. Although this type of killing is painless it’s immoral and unethical. The oath that physician takes on when becoming a doctor makes this immoral because they vow to preserve life. The stake holders are at risk of losing high valued things such as, careers, doctor’s license, loved ones, and above all else life. Even though the arguments for PAS are stronger, the arguments against PAS are even stronger. Physician Assisted Suicide should be outlawed altogether. People who support euthanasia often say that it is already considered permissible to take human life under some circumstances such as self defense, but they miss the point that when one kills for self defense they are saving innocent life, either their own or someone else's. With euthanasia no one's life is being saved, life is only taken. History has taught us the dangers of euthanasia and that is why there are only two countries in the world today where it is legal. That is why almost all societies, even non-religious ones, for thousands of years have made euthanasia a crime.