Topic Proposal and Outline: Physician Assisted Suicide
Physician-assisted suicide is regionally a hot issue – it is not something that is practiced nationally, each state has the option to keep it legalized or keep it illegal (and depending on the status of the practice, the opposite is generally something that appears on a seasonal ballot). Outside of the legalities of the practice, one question has continuously plagued the practice: is physician-assisted suicide against the physician’s code? This is an ethical issue because some doctors would argue that it is a mercy, to be able to end early suffering for terminal illnesses, and some consider it murder. It varies, from doctor to doctor, from politician to politician, like a lot of these medical-ethical debates.
Even with the invention and continued exploration of modern medicine, there are still some sicknesses and diseases out there that man and science have not been able to fully conquer, and some of those sicknesses see the people who carry them to a painful and uncomfortable end. Is the option of ending one’s own life, knowing that they will be putting a pre-emptive stop to months – maybe even years – of suffering something they are entitled to? In her article examining the legalities of physician assisted suicide (PAS), Melissa Legault finds that there is not as clear an answer to that as some might like, stating that during a 1997 case over PAS, the Supreme Court “was not prepared to recognize PAS as deeply rooted within our tradition and held that PAS was not a constitutionally protected right” (2018, p.512), differentiating it from cases where life was ended after a patient was already in a vegetative state, and other types of intimate care choices, such as abortion (2018, 514-515). PAS and its overall legality is still a state-decided issue and not something protected by Federal mandate.
“Medicine is the art of healing, the relieving of suffering, and the prolonging of life… the end of life approaches, the ability of medicine to heal and prolong life comes to an inevitable end” (2017, p. 155), states Benjamin Shibata. Shibata approaches the question of PAS with the argument that PAS is the moral and ethical way to end the suffering from terminal illnesses that medicine cannot treat. Access to PAS is a required part of upholding the ideals of individual autonomy that this nation was founded on and to deny access to it – which most states still do – is a denial of an individual’s choice to control their lives. Shibata acknowledges that PAS, “can be argued to inflict harm in the form of death… However, there are situations where aid-in-dying may be ethical” (2017, p. 156). The side of the argument that supports the inclusion of PAS in an individual’s rights are able to use the same situations that are used to support the continued rejection of PAS’ inclusion as evidence as for why it is a right.
The answer, of course, is probably somewhere in the middle – and is process that Melissa Legault acknowledges is currently starting. While the Supreme Court has not fully accepted the idea that PAS is something someone should be entitled to, they are finally starting to have the discussion as to how it can be included and legally monitored so that those who do want to use it, are able to safely do so without having to go extreme lengths – like moving across the country – to access it. The side of the argument that supports PAS has the stronger of the two arguments, in my opinion – if someone is suffering and medicine will not be able to help them, should they not be allowed to exit life as painlessly as possible? PAS makes that possible.
References
Legault, Melissa. (2018). “I Don’t Want to Die, But I am Dying”: Reexamining Physician-
Assisted Suicide in a New Age of Substantive Due Process. Arizona Law Review, 60, 509-537.
Shibata, Benjamin (2017). An Ethical Analysis of Euthanasia and Physician-Assisted Suicide:
Rejecting Euthanasia and Accepting Physician Assisted Suicide with Palliative Care. Journal of Legal Medicine, 70, 155-166.