Physician Assisted Suicide: Legalization Allows Death with Dignity for the Terminally Ill.

Authors Avatar

Physician Assisted Suicide    

Physician Assisted Suicide:

Legalization Allows Death with Dignity for the Terminally Ill

Jennifer Greene

LL 101 Argumentative Writing

August 4, 2003

Scientists and researchers are continuously discovering innovative ways of preserving and extending life, largely as a result of advances in modern medicine and biotechnology. Accordingly, the quality of human life has improved dramatically and many people are now living longer than ever before. Thus, one would tend to assert that there is consensus among the general population that prolonging life is a blessing. However, there are many, particularly those with a terminal illness, who do not view a prolonged life as a benefit, but rather as an infringement, an intrusive postponement on their rightful journey to death. This distinctive, yet increasingly prevalent perception has brought about a critical debate among medical and religious ethicists, doctors, lawmakers, and the populace regarding an individual’s right to die.

While the right to die issue encompasses numerous moral dilemmas, such as euthanasia, refusal of treatment and advanced directives, much of the contention surrounding the issue involves the ethicality and legality of physician-assisted suicide (PAS). Although PAS and euthanasia have been profound issues confronting doctors since the birth of Western medicine more than 2000 years ago, during the last decade the PAS debate has evolved into one of the most controversial and compelling issues of our times (Emanuel, 1997). The latest controversy has been generated, in large part, by the state of Oregon’s Death with Dignity Act, as well as similar legislation proposed in other states. Viewpoints both for and against the legalization of PAS are significant and deserving of consideration. But the arguments in favor, in the end, will reveal that PAS should be legalized in the United States with the adoption of the model provided by the state of Oregon. PAS for the terminally ill is ethical, humane, compassionate, and worthy of legalization. Furthermore, the arguments made against PAS are inadequate to impede upon broad legalization.

Before the arguments for and against PAS can be fully understood, however, it must be established as to what PAS is, and most importantly, what it is not. As the phrase indicates, there is no denying that PAS is suicide, and suicide itself is a legal act in the United States. PAS involves a doctor providing the means or information enabling a patient to end his or her life, most commonly by a lethal dose of pills (Robinson, 2002).

PAS is not euthanasia. Euthanasia, often referred to as mercy killing, is defined as “the act or practice of ending the life of an individual suffering from a terminal illness or an incurable condition, as by lethal injection” (American Heritage Dictionary). In a word, euthanasia is murder, regardless of the circumstances. The best way to illustrate euthanasia is to imagine an animal being “put to sleep.”

By meaning alone, it is apparent that euthanasia and PAS are clearly distinct acts, yet in much of the debate regarding PAS, the terms are often used interchangeably, which does a terrible injustice to the cause for legalization. While the intent of both PAS and euthanasia is ultimately death, it is important to consider the disparity in method by which the objective is accomplished: murder and suicide. Though suicide, or attempted suicide, is a non-criminal act throughout the nation, thirty-eight states have statutes explicitly prohibiting assisted suicide and seven states have laws making it a criminal offense to assist or to even supply the means, for a competent adult to engage in this non-criminal act. And while four states do not have statute or law specifically prohibiting assisted suicide, the state of Oregon has taken the lead as the only state to enact a law, known as the Death with Dignity Act, making PAS a legal option for the terminally ill (Americans United for Life).

Join now!

Despite the outlaw of PAS by the greater part of states, by a 61% to 34% majority, adults across the U.S. are in favor of an individuals right to physician-assisted suicide for anyone with less than six months to live, and said that they would support a law such as Oregon’s in their own state (Taylor, 2002).

The first argument in favor of PAS has to do with personal autonomy. Every individual has the right to control their life and to decide how they live. In the same way, individuals also have the right to control their death. They ...

This is a preview of the whole essay