Rachel's Conclusion

Although I do not share Renee’s opinion on wanting to make PAS illegal in every state and circumstance, I uphold her values and beliefs that life is precious. Life is so precious, that an individual should have the option of physician-assisted suicide if one is losing control of bodily function. More so, upon moral reflection, I must reinstate my opinion on act-utilitarianism and how in certain situations, it is morally permissible to end one’s own life in order to bring about the most good in a situation. What is considered “moral” is only a matter of opinion, and that is why PAS should not be outlawed because of individual beliefs. I also hope that one day this choice will become a right open to all, whether they are terminally ill or have reached the point in life where they know “it is time”. PAS should be an option to those who wish to end life free from pain, suffering, loss of autonomy, and most of all to those who wish to die with dignity.

Our Final Conclusion

The issue of Physician Assisted Suicide remains a serious debate in our country, and rightly so. After all, the practice of PAS should never be taken lightly, as it truly is a matter of live and death. During this blog project, Rachel and I have shared our personal opinions, which proved to be very interesting and informative. While we were not able to come to an agreement, at least we can now understand each other's viewpoints a little better. For example, I do understand why Rachel believes that PAS should be legalized. As she has stated, we should each have the right to end our own lives on our own terms. I'm sure that Rachel can now respect my opinion as well, that life is a gift that should not be ended a moment too soon. So, even though we are not able to agree on this issue, we can respectfully agree to disagree.

Renee's Final Thoughts

Rachel has brought up the fact that morals play a big role in how people feel about Physician-Assisted Suicide. I agree completely; in fact, my personal morals are what have lead me to defend the sanctity of life against the practice of PAS. Speaking from a Christian perspective, I am holding fast to my belief that life should be valued from conception until death. Our birth date is out of our control, and I believe that the date of our death should be left to our Creator as well. On the other hand, I realize that we all have different beliefs, and this is something that I deeply respect. However, with morals and religious convictions set aside, I still do not agree that PAS is an acceptable practice.

I am certainly not alone in this way of thinking. Even the American Medical Association (AMA) is against Physician-Assisted Suicide, on the grounds that the practice of PAS undermines the integrity of the medical profession (Braddock). The AMA’s Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs claims that PAS is not compatible with the physician’s duty to heal. Furthermore, they explain that this practice would be difficult to control, and would bring about serious risks within our society. (Harris). That’s why physician-assisted suicide remains a crime in almost every state. Physicians who practice PAS are subject to time in prison and revoked licenses (Harris), and frankly, I believe it should stay that way. In my opinion, these facts speak volumes, illustrating that individuals both in and out of the medical profession see a real issue with PAS.

Furthermore, I think it's important to realize that healthcare professionals are not infallible. Sadly, mistakes are made every day in doctors’ offices and hospitals around the world. Doctors can give an individual the news that his or her life is coming to an end; however, we must keep in mind that this is definitely not a concrete diagnosis, but merely an educated guess. Miraculously, some people have bounced back from their illnesses in unexplainable ways. For example, you can take into consideration the story of my friend and co-worker, Susan. Diagnosed with terminal colon cancer at age forty-five, she was given the news that she had less than two years to live. Not only did Susan undergo several operations to remove pieces of her infected colon, but she also had several bones replaced due to complications with chemotherapy. Eventually, Susan was admitted to hospice, where she expected to die after a long and courageous fight. Seven years later, I still see her smiling face at work each day. Although she experiences a great amount of pain in her tired body, she is cancer-free. Had PAS been a legal practice when Susan was ill, she could have ended her life unaware of the miraculous healing that was headed her way. With Susan’s amazing story in mind, it becomes obvious that PAS could prematurely end a valuable life. As I stated in my previous posts, there is always hope, and Susan’s story is living proof.

Whether or not we find healing from our illnesses, death remains a fact of life that each of us will encounter. Thankfully, we live in a society where medical advances can help us to cope with the dying process. In my opinion, regardless of the circumstances of our sufferings, each of us should embrace death and slip away at the very second that has been appointed to us, and no sooner. Our bodies will know when the time is right. They will know when and how to shut down. Then, and only then, shall we leave this world behind.





WORKS CITED


Braddock, Clarence H., MD, MPH. "Physician-Assisted Suicide." University of Washington School of Medicine. 1998. Web. 31 Jan 2010.

Harris, Dean M. Issues in Healthcare Law and Ethics. Chicago: Health Administration Press, 2008. Print.

Final thoughts

My feelings on the issue of assisted suicide vary when it comes to certain situations concerning who should be allowed to die with dignity. There is a difference that many do not understand between euthanasia and assisted suicide. Euthanasia involves the physician directly administering the lethal medication. Physician-assisted suicide, sometimes called passive euthanasia, is when a qualified physician gives a patient the knowledge and means for the patients themselves to commit suicide; therefore, the doctor does not administer the lethal medication. Though I concede that active euthanasia should remain illegal, I advocate and respect terminally ill persons who wish to receive a lethal medication to end their own life. In Oregon, a terminally ill patient must request lethal medication from a physician both orally and written with two witnesses present. I find it very important that the person making the request is fully competent in her decision; otherwise, she could be making the decision on the behalf of another individual or in a moment of desperation. It is also possible that they could be suffering from depression, and a person who is depressed may not make the choice for the right reasons. Oregon’s law states that if the patient’s physicians have reason to believe that the patient is making the request out of depression or has been corrupted by another person, then the patient is referred to a psychologist. I do not think any “Death with Dignity” act is rational for people who have a mental illness, because their judgment could be hindered. These laws ensure that people who request lethal medication are fully competent and are making the request for a better end of life care alternative.

Renee argues that suicide is unethical; however, this is only true depending on the type of ethics or one’s own moral view. According to Kantian ethics, a person has the right to determine their own end, “… the inherent worth of persons derives from their nature as free, rational being capable of directing their own lives, determining their own ends, and decreeing their own rules by which to live” (Vaughn 35). What Kant says here is that humans have the ability to control their own lives including when to know it is time to die, and how to deal with dying. Therefore, the claim that PAS is “unethical” simply is not true in all cases. Furthermore, there is no particular moral view that is more correct than another is. According to statistics presented by several research foundations concluded that, “…over 60 percent of Americans believe that a person should have a moral right to commit suicide under certain conditions, such as when suffering from great pain and without a chance of improvement” (Issitt). This quote says that people have a “moral right” to commit suicide, but on the contrary, Renee does not believe in such a moral right. Her ethical view is different, and I am not saying she is wrong just that I disagree and so do many others. Another example of why moral views differ is that between rule- utilitarianism and act- utilitarianism. A rule-utilitarian might argue that killing is never right; therefore, no one should ever kill, but an act-utilitarian would argue that one could kill if it brings about the most good in a certain situation for all involved (Vaughn 32-33). Consider a scenario where a terminally ill person with six months left to live was given the choice between being kept alive for the entire duration of the six months, but with a sharp decline in mental and physical health or a choice of PAS- if the patient requests. If the patient chooses the first option, the doctor can assure that there will be minimal pain for six months, but the patient will lose competence and may not even recognize or be able to communicate with his wife in the last few months. On the other hand, the patient can live for a period of time, but when he feels that he is losing autonomy, he can self-administer a drug to end his life. In the latter situation, the man would be able to explain to his family his decision for ending his life, maintain dignity, make necessary end of life arrangements while he still had the capability, enjoy the time he has left, and he would have time to say good-bye to loved ones. Whatever the decision may be, if a terminally ill patient opts against PAS then she has the right to do so just as much as another person has the right to end their life if they choose.


Works Cited

Issitt, Micah and Heather Newton. “Counterpoint: Assisted Suicide is a Civil Right.”
www. ebscohost.com. Points of View. 2009. Web. 30 Jan 2010.

Vaughn, Lewis. Bioethics Principles, Issues, and Cases. New York, Oxford University
Press, 2010. Print.

Suicide

Nobody wants to suffer; this fact cannot be denied. Furthermore, nobody wants to witness a loved one bearing the devastating effects of a long-term illness. These feelings are completely understandable; therefore, I can clearly see why Rachel, along with many others, agrees that Physician-Assisted Suicide (PAS) should be a legal choice for those who want to end their lives. However, I still do not agree that this so-called medical treatment should be an option.

Webster's Dictionary defines "suicide" as the intentional killing of oneself (Webster). Have you ever received the news that a friend or family member committed suicide? I have been given this news four times in my life, and with each heartbreaking story, I was overcome not only with grief, but also by one big question: "WHY?" I think that you will agree with me that regardless of "why", suicide is a sad choice, stemming from desperation and a lack of hope. Contrary to popular belief, there is always hope!

Does the help of a doctor somehow justify the act of suicide? I do not think so. The way I see it, the only difference between suicide and "mercy killing" is the presence and resources of a physician. To me, this is even more upsetting; after all, doctors are supposed to keep us healthy and alive! In fact, this is part of the Hippocratic Oath, which firmly states, "I will prescribe regimens for the good of my patients according to my ability and my judgment and never do harm to anyone.” As if that statement is not enough, the oath goes on to say, "I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody if asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect” (Edelstein). Correct me if I am wrong, but these statements clearly drive home the fact that the very concept of PAS should not exist.

Regardless of this long-standing and treasured oath, PAS has worked its way into our country. Oregon, Washington and Montana have already legalized the practice of euthanasia. However, the state of New York is looking at this medical issue quite differently. While many people (along with Rachel) believe that PAS is sometimes the only remaining option, I would like the challenge that idea by offering the following statement from the New York Department of Health's Task Force on Life and The Law:

"In the course of their research, many Task Force members were particularly struck by the degree to which requests for suicide assistance by terminally ill patients are correlated with clinical depression or unmanaged pain, both of which can ordinarily be treated effectively with current medical techniques. As a society, we can do far more to benefit these patients by improving pain relief and palliative care than by changing the law to make it easier to commit suicide or to obtain a lethal injection” (Task Force on Life and The Law).

In other words, ending one’s life via suicide, with or without the assistance of a physician, simply does not have to be. With the amazing advances in medicine today, there are endless options to explore.


WORKS CITED

Edelstein, Ludwig. The Hippocratic Oath: Text, Translation and Interpretation. Baltimore: John Hopkins Press, 1943. Print.

"Suicide." Entry 1. Def. 1. The Pocket Webster School & Office Dictionary. 1990. Print.

Task Force on Life and The Law. "When Death is Sought - Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia in the Medical Context." New York State Department of Health. Oct. 2001. Web. 29 Jan. 2010.

I do not contest that life is a gift. Rather, that life should be preserved at all costs. PAS should be an option after all other palliative efforts have failed. However, some individuals may be unable to find comfort when they have lost autonomy over their mind and body. The very thought of not recognizing their children or solely depending on others leaves them with an utter feeling of hopelessness. In the discussion of PAS, Renee argues that pain management is an alternative to assisted suicide, but I have found contrary evidence that lists pain as being rather irrelevant for the decision in PAS. Research in a program called Education for Physicians on End-of-Life Care asserts that, “Physical suffering, including pain, is a less frequent motivator than many think. In one study, pain alone was a motivator in 3% of requests, pain was one of several motivators in 46% of requests, and in the remaining 51% of requests pain was not cited as a factor at all”(PCCEF). This denies the allegation of using medication as a quick fix to end suffering. In fact, medication that helps to eliminate one symptom or hinder pain may produce unwanted side effects. With PAS, a patient can talk with doctors about all other options, and receive counseling to ensure they are making a clear choice. The patient can decide when and where they would like to pass with friends and family by their side. Physician-assisted suicide is not something to be feared, but yet another advance in the medical world.

Works Cited

Physicians for Compasionate Care Education Foundation (PCCEF). www.pccef.org.
FAQs. 2008 Web. 29 Jan 2010.

Physician-Assisted Suicide

Many words have been used to describe life. It is a blessing or a curse, joyful or painful, meaningful or confusing. No matter how you choose to describe your existence, it cannot be denied that each life is a miraculous gift. It is not the kind of gift that you can return to the store, even if you have a receipt. To put it simply, it is my believe that life, no matter what the quality, should be treasured wholeheartedly.

We cannot choose the date of our birth. We are brought into this life by the will of our Creator, not knowing what our journey will entail or how long it will last. Some are blessed with a long and healthy life, while others find themselves suffering from mental or physical illness. Regardless of our triumphs and sorrows, one thing is certain: death will come. It is an experience that each of us will endure.

Joan Baez said, “You don't get to choose how you're going to die. Or when. You can only decide how you're going to live” (Baez). While I fully embrace this opinion, many people disagree with Baez’s statement. In fact, it has become a common viewpoint that a person who is suffering from a devastating illness should not have to bear the pain and misery of a joyless life. Thus, the practice of Physician-Assisted Suicide has crept its way into our country, bringing a “merciful release” to those who wish to carry their burdens no longer.

Death is not supposed to be easy. On the contrary, it can be a painful and frightening experience. Thankfully, there are many medical treatment options that can help us to live our last days in peace and comfort. It is my firm conviction that Physician-Assisted Suicide is not one of these options, but rather a dangerous, unethical, and tragic choice made out of desperation by a hurting soul.

No matter how difficult it may be to cope with a serious illness, life should not end in such an unfortunate manner. Instead, each of our days, whether good or bad, should be lived as fully as possible. Simply stated, I echo the words of Marcus Aurelius: "When you arise in the morning, think of what a precious privilege it is to be alive – to breathe, to think, to enjoy, to love” (Aurelius).


WORKS CITED


Aurelius, Marcus, as quoted in Brainy Quote. "When you arise..." Brainy Quote. Web. 28 January 2010.

Baez, Joan, as quoted in Brainy Quote. "You don't get to choose..." Brainy Quote. Web. 28 January 2010.

Physician-Assisted Suicide

When it comes to the topic of death, most of us will readily agree that we want to go in peace. Where this agreement usually ends, however, is on the question of physician-assisted suicide (abbreviated as PAS). Whereas some are convinced that PAS should not be an option, other maintain that it is a right upheld by Autonomy. Autonomy is a moral principle by which a human has the right to control her life and make knowledgeable decisions for herself. Throughout our lives, we have the autonomy to make choices in healthy or unhealthy lifestyles. When it comes to medical care, a patient has the right to either deny or accept a surgery or medication. “…they [patients] can refuse life-sustaining treatment. This expression of prior intentions is now widely recognized as a legitimate exercise of autonomous choice” (Vaughn). The essence of Vaughn’s argument is that forgoing a certain treatment may cause a patient to die, yet it remains legal to do so. If a person has the right to end their life through starvation or resisting treatment, then they should have the legal freedom of other means to end suffering. Currently, physician-assisted suicide is illegal in 47 states. Three of the United States, Montana, Washington, and Oregon, have legalized PAS (MT court). Bowden boldly states about the legal right to die, “What lawmakers must grasp is that there is no rational basis upon which the government can properly prevent any individual from choosing to end his own life” (Bowden). Therefore, when a person reaches the end of her life she may be plagued with disease that causes unbearable agony, but the choices are limited to suffering, deterioration, or a hasty secret suicide. Even when a doctor has confirmed that the diagnosis is irreversible and the prognosis is death within a year, how can someone deny the person right to a dignified end? Physician-assisted suicide for a terminally ill person should be a legal and educated choice made between a doctor and the patient after all other palliative efforts have been suggested or made.

Works Cited
Bowden, Thomas A. "Individuals Should Have a Legal Right to Choose Death."
GaleGroup.com. Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center, n.d. Web. 27 Jan 2010.
"MT court rules state policy allows assisted suicide." Medical Ethics Advisor 1 Feb. 2010. Health Reference Center Academic. Web. 28 Feb. 2010.
Vaughn, Lewis. Bioethics Principles, Issues, and Cases. New York, Oxford University Press, 2010. Print. 4 March 2010.