He was a patient who fought his malady for years, and after failing to be cured, sought to end his suffering in a legal, controlled manner. As human beings we deserve the right to decide for ourselves in a certain death situation when and how to go. When a person’s only options are living with a loss of trust in health care professionals, dignity, and quality of life, or attempting to commit suicide by himself, where is he supposed to turn for assistance and guidance? Why should he be forced to linger indefinitely and continue to suffer so that the government can feel it has done the decent, moral thing?Physician-assisted suicide should be legalized and is a decision that should be made by a patient and his physician, not by a judge and an appeals board. In physician-assisted suicide, a physician gives a terminally ill patient a prescription for a lethal dose of narcotics to be self administered when the times comes that the effects of his disease are no longer controllable or tolerable. As of now, it is legal only in the state of Oregon.
It has long been disputed for many reasons. Among them are religion, public opinion, and how to govern and restrict the process.As there is supposed to be a division of Church and State, religion should play no part in making this decision. According to a poll, “61% of people answered ‘yes’ to the question ‘Shall the law allow terminally ill adult patients the voluntary informed choice to obtain a Suicide 3 physician’s prescription for drugs to end life? ’” (Fraser & Walters, 2002, p. 3).
In a separate poll “60% of physicians said they should be able to help terminal patients and 7% admitted to having done so” (Fiesta, 1997, p 3).When it comes to health care choices, people usually turn to their doctors for help in guiding them in the right direction making these decisions. Doctors are expected to have compassion for their patients in their time of pain and suffering. Suffering means more than just pain; there are other physical and psychological trials and tribulations. It is not always possible to relieve a patient’s suffering, the mental anguish that comes with waiting and wondering, and the humiliation at their condition.
Physician-assisted suicide can be a compassionate response to unendurable suffering. According to Robert T.Hall, author of “Final Act; Sorting Out the Ethics of Physician-Assisted Suicide” (1994), patients want to trust their doctors not to abandon them in their most desperate time of need, when dying is their best option. Hall believes the medical field will earn more respect overall if it agrees to help ease the dying process rather than leave patients to their own devices (p. 4). In the final months of a terminally ill patient’s life, there is usually a sharp decline in the patient’s ability to care for himself.
When this happens, these tasks often fall upon the patient’s spouse, a family member, or a close friend.These tasks range from the mundane (i. e. laundry, cooking, cleaning, and shopping), to intimate necessities that include bathing, tooth brushing and assisting with bodily function clean up.
These situations can be extremely embarrassing for the patient, making an already degrading Suicide 4 situation that much more humiliating. No one should ever be forced to remain in a position in which his dignity is stripped from them. In addition, quality is defined as a degree or grade of excellence. Quality of life can mean different things to different people.To some it may mean being able to travel and see the world, going to an opera or to the ballet.
To others it may be as simple as being able to go to see a movie on a Sunday afternoon or taking a stroll in the park with their spouse. To live without quality is a miserable excuse for a life. Peter Rogatz, author of “The Positive Virtues of Physician-Assisted Suicide” (2001), wrote that “severe body wasting, intractable vomiting, urinary and bowel incontinence, immobility, and total dependence are recognized as more important than pain in the desire for hastened death” (p. ) Physician-assisted suicide will help these patients end their suffering and their life in a safe, reasonable manner. A person in terrible, unrelenting anguish and agony can take only so much pain before taking matters into his own hands.
This situation should be avoided by any means possible. Rogatz (2001) also conveys these words of insight, It is argued that patients don’t need assistance to commit suicide; they can manage it all by themselves. This seems both callous and unrealistic.Are patients to shoot themselves, jump from a window, starve themselves to death, or rig a pipe to the car exhaust? All of these methods have been used by patients in the final stages of desperation, but it is a hideous experience for both patient and survivors (p. 3). Suicide 5 This final act can also be responsible for life insurance companies denying death benefits to the survivors of the patient due to unread clauses in the policy.
If the policies in Oregon were adopted by the other 49 states, it would keep travesties like this from happening.The Death With Dignity Act (ORS 127. 800-897) became law in Oregon on October 27, 1997. According to “Death With Dignity Act (ORS 127. 800-897): a Health Policy Analysis,” written by Tanya K. Altmann and Suzanne Edgett Collins (2007), the Oregon act has safeguards so that choosing physician-assisted suicide cannot affect a health or life insurance policy.
Another safeguard says that if one ends his life in accordance with the law, his death does not count as a suicide (p. 10). There are still some that are against physician-assisted suicide.They argue that this practice is a slippery slope and there is still too great a margin for error. This practice can be abused and that some may die because they are receiving pressure from family members about medical expenses, or because they are too scared to wait and see what is going to happen to them.
Once again, instituting an act similar to the one instated in Oregon can relieve the worry of that. Oregon has extremely strict standards and guidelines for this procedure. The requesting patient must be an adult and a resident of Oregon.He must have a diagnosis of a terminal illness that will result in his death within six months and that has been confirmed by an additional physician. He must also make multiple verbal requests for a prescription in addition to a written request witnessed by two people.
He must be deemed mentally capable of making the decision and referred to a counselor if not. He must be aware of all the alternatives, and finally, it is requested but not required that he inform his family of his decision. After all of these steps have Suicide 6 een completed, the prescribing physician works with a pharmacist to “design” a personalized mixture for this patient. After the prescription is written and filled, the patient is at liberty to decide for himself how and when to take this “cocktail” (Altmann & Collins, 2007 p. 9).
If these guidelines are strictly adhered to, the potential for abuse of this procedure can be kept to a minimum if not eliminated completely. Not every patient requests and receives a prescription uses it.In 2006 only 64 prescription requests were made and filled. Of those 64, only half of the recipients died of ingesting the medication.
Many want to have the medication on hand if their situation deteriorates to the point where it is not worth tolerating anymore (Altmann, & Collins, 2007, p. 12). In conclusion, we need to stand up for the rights of those that may not be able to stand up for themselves. We as a people do not have the right to force anyone to live any more than we have the right to force someone to die.
