Against Physician-assisted Death Essay

According to the Death with Dignity website Physician-Assisted Dying or their preferred terminology death with dignity is defined as “Death with dignity statutes allow mentally competent adult state residents who have a terminal illness with a confirmed prognosis of having 6 or fewer months to live to voluntarily request and receive a prescription medication to hasten their inevitable, imminent death.” (deathwithdignity.org). Although the physician would not be physically assisting in their patient's death like they would with lethal injection. The physicians do write the patient a prescription of a fatal dosage of the medication and instructions on how to overdose and end their lives. Physician Assisted Dying is a way for terminally sick patients to take their life and death back into their own hands. This makes it possible for these patients to end life on their own terms and possibly cut down on the amount of pain and suffering they would otherwise be going through in their remaining days.

The Death with Dignity website also informs that at this time there are only eight states in the United States that allow physician-assisted suicide. These states: are California, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, New Jersey, Oregon, Vermont, and Washington state, as well as the District of Columbia. Oregon was the first state to legalize physician-assisted dying around 1997 with no other state following until Washington state adopted it in 2008. The most recent states to legalize assisted death were Hawaii, Maine, and New Jersey all occurring in 2019.

Save your time!
We can take care of your essay

• Proper editing and formatting
• Free revision, title page, and bibliography
• Flexible prices and money-back guarantee

Place an order

Although it is not a widespread practice, the United States is not the only place where Physician Assisted Death is performed. It can also be found in parts of Australia, Belgium, Canada, Colombia, Luxembourg, The Netherlands, and Switzerland (my death-mydecision.org.uk). Each location has its own terms and laws requirements but all seem to emphasize that the patient must be considered to be of sound mind, and most, but not all require a physician's diagnosis of 6 months or less life expectancy and documentation of the final event.

Suicide is most commonly defined as, intentionally, taking one's own life. According to Pence in Medical Ethics, Immanuel Kant held the position that taking one's own life or injuring one's body is immoral because our bodies are under God's ownership and we should stay at our ‘post’ on earth until God decides otherwise. David Hume held the view that for patients that are already terminal, voluntary death is not a sin. John Stuart Mill expressed that people should be allowed to do as they wish, as long as it did not harm others. The stipulation on suicide is that the intention of the suicide was not used to make those around them feel bad after from grief, unanswered questions, or feeling like they should have stopped the person that committed suicide, therefore making it an immoral act. The main argument that Pence brought up in Medical Ethics, is that allowing physician-assisted death creates a slippery slope. Although this may begin as only competent adult patients exercising their choice to use physician-assisted death, some believe that this could open the doors to assisted deaths being used for disabled or sick infants, or older children. This was even compared to the Holocaust where Hitler started with killing off sick and disabled infants/ children and then expanded to sentencing many to death. Pence also brings up some critics' concerns that physicians are humans and make mistakes. They may diagnose someone as terminal but medical events are not always so black and white. Patients may miraculously recover, or improve or the physician's estimated life span for patients may be off. Pence also brings up that in physician-assisted suicide, medications are prescribed and taken in overdose via the doctor's recommendation on a lethal amount. But death may not always occur, and a patient may become comatose instead because their body reacts differently to the medications.

I would support the legalization of Physician-Assisted Death in Missouri or any other state, with strict laws and requirements attached. I believe as long as we are not harming others or putting them in unsafe positions then we should be free to do as we wish with our own bodies. In my opinion, if someone truly wants to die and is physically able to proceed alone, they will. Physician Assisted Death just gives these patients who are ready to end their lives a way to do so comfortably. When researching where Physician Assisted Death is legal it seemed to show that it was not a practice that was used often in most places where Assisted Death is legal.

In the textbook Bioethics: An Anthology, James Rachels differentiates the terms active euthanasia and passive euthanasia. Active euthanasia is described as actively killing someone such as doctors giving lethal injections to achieve the outcome of death. Passive euthanasia is not intervening with life-saving measures and letting the body shut down on its own, an example is not doing a procedure that could save the person's longevity. Rachels defends that in some situations active euthanasia is more humane than passive euthanasia because with passive euthanasia patients are left to succumb to their disease or illness sometimes quite slowly and painfully, while with active euthanasia the patient is aided in dying peacefully. The Conventional doctrine state that active euthanasia is never allowed but that passive euthanasia may be allowed under certain conditions. Though the doctrine may be challenged. In section 23, a exert from Germain Grisez and Joseph M. Boyles's writing, they speak on the immorality of issues such as; physician-assisted death, passive euthanasia, and active euthanasia. Their opinion is not so black and white though. They hold the view that in a few instances a patient choosing death over extended life is morally okay. For example, if the proposed treatment would be too big of a burden for the patient to be at minimally comfortable enough to do things they enjoy unless said patient has a moral responsibility to others then they must suffer through the proposed treatment's side effects.

I believe both sides are right, for themselves. I believe that as consenting, sane, and consistent adults, we should be allowed to make the choice for our own bodies. That includes making our own choices in morality as long as it does not harm another individual intentionally. If any medical workers feel any personal moral unease then they should not be required to work with the patient during that time. I believe the hardest place to draw lines is when it comes to euthanasia, either passive or active for children or those who cannot decide for themselves and is very dependent on the situation.

1. “Assisted Dying in Other Countries.” My Death, My Decision, 6 Feb. 2020, www.mydeath-mydecision.org.uk/info/assisted-dying-in-other-countries/.
2. “Death with Dignity Acts - States That Allow Assisted Death.” Death With Dignity, www.deathwithdignity.org/learn/death-with-dignity-acts/.
3. Kuhse, Helga, Udo Schüklenk, Peter Singer. Bioethics: An Anthology. [VitalSource Bookshelf].
4. Pence, Gregory. Medical Ethics: Accounts of Ground-Breaking Cases.. [VitalSource Bookshelf].