Philosophy Paper 2

Physician-assisted suicide and active voluntary euthanasia should be legal in the United States.

There has been a fierce debate among many stakeholders that include government and non-governmental agencies, religious leaders, healthcare professionals, researchers, activists and scholars on whether physician-assisted suicide and active voluntary euthanasia should get legalized or not. Physician-assisted suicide refers to the act where a licensed professional or doctor prescribes lethal drugs to a patient at their voluntary, informed and competent request with the aim of causing death. Voluntary Active Euthanasia refers to the action of a doctor or licensed professional to administer lethal medicine to a patient at their voluntary, informed as well as competent request with the aim of causing death. Various scholars and stakeholders argue that physician-assisted suicide and active voluntary euthanasia should get legalized in the United States. In this paper, I will argue that physician-assisted suicide should be illegal in the United States. I will also show that it’s wrong and unlawful for a licensed professional in the health care sector to undertake active voluntary euthanasia.

The proponents of these practices argue that their practices are necessary as they result in a benefit to the patient (Kamm, 1997). They claim that suffering is evil, and these actions eliminate the pain caused by suffering. They maintain that the patients suffering from terminal illnesses have a right to choose not to suffer by taking their lives. They argue that the principle of autonomy in healthcare gets adhered to, as the patient who is not well-trained in ending life procedures voluntarily requests for the services of a trained physician to assist them in ending their lives.

However, this argument fails greatly due to several reasons. First, the principle of autonomy has limitation. The disparity of knowledge as well as clinical judgment compromises the principle of autonomy. All health care professionals have a greater knowledge base that their patients and also have a responsibility to do good to their patients. The suffering caused by diseases such as terminal illness limits a patient’s right to autonomy. Suffering may be a severe and multifaceted challenge, however, is not insurmountable. It is treatable, and the use of certain powerful analgesics and pain management techniques can significantly relieve pain. Hence, these proponents are wrong by suggesting death as the only measure to deal with pain.

The nations that tolerate or legalize assisted suicide or active voluntary euthanasia do so under some set guidelines. For instance, "German where voluntary euthanasia gets prohibited and assisted suicide does not get considered as a violation of the law provided that the patient is tatherrschaftsfahig" (Battin, 2006). That is the patient is capable of exercising control over his or her actions and also acting out of freely responsible choice. In Netherlands, active euthanasia remains prohibited by statutory law and also gets protected by a series of lower and Supreme Court decisions. It broadly gets considered as legal as long as the healthcare professional meets several guidelines. The guidelines are; that the patient’s request be voluntary, that the patient is undergoing intolerable suffering, that the patient gets well informed, that all acceptable alternatives for relieving pain have got attempted and that the physician consults another healthcare professional.

The practice by the Netherlands fails significantly since its availability creates a disincentive for providing good terminal care. The practice also erodes into practicing less-than-voluntary euthanasia on patients whose problems are not irremediable and usually by moderate degrees develop into terminating the lives of individuals who are elderly, handicapped, chronically ill or mentally retarded. In the case of German, Physicians should understand that tehy6 involvement in assisted suicide results into more harm in the practice of medicine. The patients who are dying will have a fear that they are dying due to assisted suicide is allowed. This practice gets seen to distort the healing relationship between doctors and their patients. It is the responsibility of the physician to do what they can ethically so as to alleviate suffering and should in no circumstance involve themselves knowingly in the death of a patient.

As an objection, it may get argued that it is necessary to cause permissible death as a side effect if it leads to relieving pain, as sometimes it is a lesser evil and pain relief is a greater good. This argument allows a healthcare physician to treat pain in whatever manner so as to result in a patient’s greater good.

This objection is wrong since killing a person is not of any good to a patient. There are other alternatives for relieving pain other than death. Furthermore, it does not necessary require a healthcare professional to cause death. Numerous effective methodologies are available especially on the internet that does not necessarily involve a physician.

The paper states in what numerous ways physician-assisted suicide and active voluntary euthanasia are of more harm than good to a patient. The paper also argues why health care professionals should in not by any means get involved in any practices that aim at causing death as it destroys the patient and doctor relationship as well as is against the principles of medicine. Hence, physician-assisted suicide and active voluntary euthanasia should not get legalized in the United States.

References

Battin, M. (2006). Euthanasia: the way we do it, the way they do it. Moral Issues in Global Perspective, 1, 69.

Kamm, F. M. (1997). A Right to Choose Death?. Boston review, 22(3).

Sherry Roberts is the author of this paper. A senior editor at MeldaResearch.Com in research paper services if you need a similar paper you can place your order for professional research proposal writing services.

"Janet Peter is the Managing Director of a globally competitive essay writing company.