Physician Assisted Suicide Essay Research Paper The

Physician Assisted Suicide Essay, Research Paper

The issue of physician-assisted suicide has come to be one of the most controversial legal issues in recent history. In my opinion I think that the law is designed to lay out guidelines for the social conduct of individuals in society. Yet, within this definition there are extremes on both ends of the spectrum in which the law encompasses. The question of whether or not physicians can legally prescribe and administer lethal doses of medication to mentally competent patients who suffer from the issue of physician-assisted suicide has become a heated topic. Whether or not physicians can legally prescribe and administer lethal doses of medication to mentally competent patients who suffer from untreatable pain is not an easily conclusive issue. Rather, the question of the ethics is the pressing legal matter. Some may argue that life should be ended in its due time and not tampered with, yet I cannot agree with this. I strongly feel that mentally competent adults who are in a constant state of suffering and who know, and have been told that death is inevitable have the right to commit suicide with the aide of a physician. If the person so wishes to end their life it should not lay blame on the physician who assisted in the matter.

Individuals, who are against physician-assisted suicide, while I may not personally agree, have valid arguments against this practice. According to an article in the Connecticut Post even the term of physician assisted suicide is inconsistent. .If someone assists you with your death, you have not committed suicide. You have been killed.. (Conn. Post. 4-27-98) When physicians take the Hippocratic oath they agree to the terms Hippocrates stated. .He wrote, . I will give no deadly medicine to anyone if asked, nor suggest any such counsel.. (Conn. Post) On this same line that physicians are fundamentally opposed to aiding in the death of individuals there is also an argument that the right to die is not a fundamental right. . A person cannot exercise a right to kill himself without first waiving his right to life.there is no right to give up one.s right to life or be free from freedom..(Mark Rothe p. 9, Amicus Brief) This states that an individual cannot give up his or her inalienable right to life, and just as a person cannot make themselves slaves, Rothe argues that a person cannot legally have any rights. Thus if a person is dead they have no rights. People who assist in suicides can even be seen as felons who commit homicide if they are put under Wharton.s Criminal Law. . To kill one already dying, to accelerate one.s death, to kill one condemned to be executed the next day, or to kill a worthless victim.. (p.6) If this is to be held as law, then physicians who unduly break this law and should be legally held responsible for killing a person even if he or she is already dying.

While there are may reasons why physicians should have to take legal responsibility in assisting in the death of a patient, I do not believe that it is fair for society and the law to prohibit an individual of the liberty to do what they want with their life. While this disagrees with the previous statement about inalienable rights, it is unfair to for a person to have to endure horrid pain when they know that there will never be an end to it. If the person so chooses, in a competent state of mind, to terminate their life with the aide of a physician how can society say that this is wrong. Some opponents to this may make far-fetched remark, for example, people do not have the right to do illegal drugs such as heroine because it makes them a nuisance to society. Yet, the ultimate factor in why physicians should be legally allowed to aide in medical suicides is because the individual is not committing an act that would make them a nuisance to society. They are merely putting themselves out of their pain in a respectable and proper manner. Physicians should not be held responsible for this type of medical treatment if it is done so in a regulatory and proper manner.

Some people may feel that in the future physicians may just hide behind the protection of the law if statutes protecting physician-assisted suicides are created. Yet, this is not so. The Washington based non- profit organization Compassion In Dying goes through comprehensive analysis of the patient before any further steps are taken in the process to let the patient die with the aide of a physician. If conducted in this manner physicians are only helping to provide the means to which a person can commit suicide through medication. In Judge Rothstein.s ruling of Compassion In Dying v. The State of Washington he stated, ..preventing suicide simply mean.s prolonging a dying person.s suffering, an aim in which the State can have no interest.. (Rothstein p. 10) In this statement Judge Rothstein concludes that the State has no place in interfering with the wishes of the terminally ill who are dying and living under such dire circumstances and therefore as long as it is regulated physicians are not subject to conviction if they assist in a suicide.

In Oregon.s Death With Dignity Act mentally competent, terminally ill adults can legally end their lives though physician assisted suicide without the interference of the state. Oregon.s law, which respects the wishes of dying people, is in my opinion to be commended for taking such a strong stand for the r