Should physician-assisted suicide be legal?

According to Merriam-Webster dictionary, “assisted suicide is the act of suicide committed

by someone with assistance from another person, especially from a physician”. It often
occurs when a doctor assist a patient’s death by giving the necessary medicine or
information that enables the patient to carry out his or her suicide (American Medical
Association, 2019). Assisted suicide can also be considered as “active euthanasia”, that
means to deliberately intervening to end someone’s life, for example, by providing him or
her a sedative overdose (NHS, 2017).

There are some places where assisted suicide is legal: Switzerland, Germany, the
Netherlands, and in the US states of Washington, Oregon, Colorado, Hawaii, Vermont,
Montana, Washington, D.C., Maine (Starting on 1 January 2020), New Jersey, and
California. In those countries there are also famous organizations that help terminally ill
patients ending their life without suffering or pain. Some of the most famous organizations
are “Dignitas” in Switzerland and “Death with Dignity” that works in many states of the
United States.

Over the last decades assisted suicide has been a controversial matter that concern people
all over the world. There are endless arguments that support and contradict this topic either
for religious, moral or human compassion reasons. Even health experts differ where they
establish the fine line that divides relief from killing and dying. The complexity of the
problem lies in the will of the terminally ill, since they being in this situation, have come to
ask doctors to help them exercise active euthanasia, It is really lamentable knowing that
some people’s agony make them think their only hope is death. However, assisted suicide
can have two totally different perspectives; the negative connotation, where means the
same as murder. And the positive one where, active euthanasia is the action of assisting
someone to dead painlessly, or authorize a person that is suffering from and incurable
disease to die by extreme medical measures such as sedative overdose (De La Torre, 2019).

There are two sides well defined around assisted suicide. A lot of people hold that it is an
inherent right that every person, especially the ones that suffer from a terminally illness
have and can exert. Nevertheless, there are also a lot of people who think that there will be
a lot of issues that will result from legalizing this practice; for example abuses from family
or doctors, religious people also argue that it is a sin (De La Torre, 2019).

All the advances in medical technology had managed to prolong the lives of human

beings. For the patients who have a realistic change to survive, medical technology is the

best progress of humanity, nevertheless to the terminally ill patients, it just means to

prolong their suffering, there are cases where pain medication is not enough. Terminally ill
patients should have the right to euthanasia because it is the best way to end the pain that no

drug can cure (De La Torre, 2019).

A dying person’s suffering can be most unbearable to that person’s family because

of the extremely high prices that surround between two thousand to ten thousand dollars a

month; there are only few patients who can afford the prices by themselves, so, in a lot of

cases the families are subject to financial ruin. A lot of people say that they don’t want their

families to spend a lot of money if they know that they will die anyway (Dworkin, 1993).

Most of terminally ill patients want their right to assisted suicide because this way

they can afford their end avoiding unnecessary suffering and costs. Some others even think

this is an inherent right which does not need to be given to the patient. The right of assisted

suicide means the election of dying with dignity and chase their happiness and peace, it

would be “…a final exercise of autonomy…” for them (Cotton, 1995). Instead of being

people who are waiting their dead, they will make their final active choice in their life.

“Hippocratic Oath”, the argument most people use to hold their position against

assisted suicide is, really pointless because this oath makes the physician promise to relieve

pain and not to administer deadly medicine. However, cancer medicine is considered as

deadly medicine because of its secondary effects on the human body. Giving a terminally

ill patient high dosages of medicine and placing him or her on medical equipment don’t

help anything but the illness, in some cases there is no way to save this type of patients but

the active euthanasia. Dr. Robert Twycross said “To use such measures in the terminally ill,

with no expectancy of a return to health, is generally inappropriate and is—therefore—bad

medicine by definition”
 Some opponents of this practice insist that there are possible abuses that can derive

from the legalization of assisted suicide. They assure patients will be forced to make this

choice because of the financial situation of their relatives. It is a respectable point.

Nevertheless, the choice of active euthanasia is one of the best decisions for the patient, and

this decision may include the financial situation of their families (Smith, 1993).

The right of assisted suicide should be freely given to everyone who is terminally ill. This

right will let them come to their end worthily; safe their families from financial ruin and

relieve themselves and their relatives from unbearable pain. Giving this right to competent

adult people with terminal illnesses, means giving them autonomy to finish their journey on

a well-lived life (De La Torre, 2019).

On the other hand the right to the assisted suicide can cause abuses arise from the

legal framework , in order to choose assisted suicide because their final situation .Another

highly critical challenge for the assisted death system would be identify if the patients

applying for death were legally capable to take that decision. contemplate any appeal for

suicide from a patient/person with clinical depression is usually recognized as a signal of

mental disorder, therefore it lacks capacity and judgment. It is reasonable impossible to

isolate the depression with the natural feelings from the terminal illness .In fact , there is

proof that higher depressive disorders affect between 77% and 25% of patients with

terminal illness. (Mystakidou, 2001)

 The right to assisted suicide should be freely granted to who suffers a terminal

illness. As long as fulfill the psychological requirements that support its desire to relieve of

insufferable pain and the desire to save the family from financial issues or ruin .

Referencias
(s.f.).

De La Torre, E. (2019). The Right to Assisted Suicide Debate. Texas: Lone Star College.

Mystakidou, K. (2001). Depression, anxiety, and delirium in the terminally ill patient. Bayl
university Medical center , 130-133.

Bibliography:

Cotton, Paul. “Medicine’s Position Is Both Pivotal And Precarious In Assisted

……..Suicide Debate." The Journal of the American Association 1 Feb. 1995: 363-64.

Dworkin, Ronald. Life’s Dominion. New York: Knopf, 1993.

De La Torre, E. (2019). The Right to Assisted Suicide Debate. Texas: Lone Star College.

Smith, Cheryl. “Should Active Euthanasia Be Legalized: Yes.” American Bar

……..Association Journal April 1993. Rpt. in CQ