Physician Assisted Suicide
According to the AMA (American Medical Association), Physician Assisted Suicide involves physician administered prescription of lethal medication or assistance in finding other means that allow the patient to end their own life. In order to participate in PAS, the patient must be terminally ill- or suffering from an extraordinary pain from a chronic illness, disorder, or disease- and a mentally competent adult. There is much debate surrounding the topic in whether it is ethical to medically assist a patient in their quest of ending their own life. In the United States, only a limited number of locations legally allow PAS: Oregon, Montana, Washington, Vermont, Hawaii, California, Colorado, and Washington D.C. In opposition of the AMA's perspective that advocates against the action's ethical legality, it is argued that PAS is in fact Dying with Dignity or Physician Assisted Death; some highlight that language indicates its true intentionality. The emerging law is additionally permitted in many different global locations, one of the most prominent being the Netherlands and Belgium. The law has become permissible to the extent of allowing those with chronic psychiatric disorders to engage in PAS. Extreme objections oppose this proposition, but it brings to question what is permissible for PAS if it is permissible at all. On a final note, PAS can often be confused with euthanasia, but it is important to regard the difference: euthanasia is the act of physician administered death, were as PAS is administered by the patient themselves.
The major supportive claim of PAS is that it gives chronically suffering patients full autonomy in their medical well being. While physicians may put their best foot forward to keep pain to a minimum upon a patients last days, it may be perceived as allowing a further amount of suffering than the patient would like to endure. This is where the definition of beneficence becomes misconstrued. For those in support of PAS, it is argued that by legally allow permission of patient requested and physician assisted death (with the proper criteria being met), the physician is actually doing what is best for the patient. In addition to autonomy and beneficence, when referring to the AMA, it can be argued that allowing legality of PAS actually cares for the patient fully. It is the health care provider's responsibility never abandon the patient upon finding out a cure is unachievable, and if they refuse to truly respect a patient's autonomy, they are technically abandoning the wishes of the patient. Finally, it another arguable topic is in regards to financial standing of the patient. Say the patient is chronically ill, and guaranteed to die within the next 3 weeks; but in order to keep the patient alive, they are required to stay hospitalized under intensive treatment, care, and monitoring. This care at the hospital costs a great deal of money, and it puts a massive financial strain on both the parent and patient. In addition, the patient is experiencing great suffering, and will continue to until their last day. The patient requests PAS for the purpose of ending both physical, mental, emotional, and financial stress. It is ultimately for the best interest of the patient and their family long term to end the patient's life- which further disproves the claim of the AMA.
On the other hand, those in opposition of PAS claim it does not support the best interest of the patient to allow termination of their life. On the religious end, especially in regards to Christianity, it is argued that suicide, of all kinds, does not uphold the sanctity of life. On an ethical end, it is argued that PAS does not adhere to what is best for the well being of the patient in the long run. In addition, considering the patient-physician relationship, PAS not only puts a heavy burden on the physician, but it also affects trust in the relationship and on the medical profession. Is it ethical to call a physician and health care provider when they are indirectly administering death on their patients? This is where the line gets misconstrued. It can be argued that PAS abandons the physician's responsibility to care for the patients health and well being, so instead of allowing death, they should be focusing energy toward improving means of managing suffering. They should be working to make life livable until the patient's final days, or it is argued that a plausible alternative is Continuous Sedation. This method puts the patient in a sedated state until their final day, which allows patient to escape extreme pain and the physician is not indirectly administering death- which can be psychologically taxing.
The major supportive claim of PAS is that it gives chronically suffering patients full autonomy in their medical well being. While physicians may put their best foot forward to keep pain to a minimum upon a patients last days, it may be perceived as allowing a further amount of suffering than the patient would like to endure. This is where the definition of beneficence becomes misconstrued. For those in support of PAS, it is argued that by legally allow permission of patient requested and physician assisted death (with the proper criteria being met), the physician is actually doing what is best for the patient. In addition to autonomy and beneficence, when referring to the AMA, it can be argued that allowing legality of PAS actually cares for the patient fully. It is the health care provider's responsibility never abandon the patient upon finding out a cure is unachievable, and if they refuse to truly respect a patient's autonomy, they are technically abandoning the wishes of the patient. Finally, it another arguable topic is in regards to financial standing of the patient. Say the patient is chronically ill, and guaranteed to die within the next 3 weeks; but in order to keep the patient alive, they are required to stay hospitalized under intensive treatment, care, and monitoring. This care at the hospital costs a great deal of money, and it puts a massive financial strain on both the parent and patient. In addition, the patient is experiencing great suffering, and will continue to until their last day. The patient requests PAS for the purpose of ending both physical, mental, emotional, and financial stress. It is ultimately for the best interest of the patient and their family long term to end the patient's life- which further disproves the claim of the AMA.
On the other hand, those in opposition of PAS claim it does not support the best interest of the patient to allow termination of their life. On the religious end, especially in regards to Christianity, it is argued that suicide, of all kinds, does not uphold the sanctity of life. On an ethical end, it is argued that PAS does not adhere to what is best for the well being of the patient in the long run. In addition, considering the patient-physician relationship, PAS not only puts a heavy burden on the physician, but it also affects trust in the relationship and on the medical profession. Is it ethical to call a physician and health care provider when they are indirectly administering death on their patients? This is where the line gets misconstrued. It can be argued that PAS abandons the physician's responsibility to care for the patients health and well being, so instead of allowing death, they should be focusing energy toward improving means of managing suffering. They should be working to make life livable until the patient's final days, or it is argued that a plausible alternative is Continuous Sedation. This method puts the patient in a sedated state until their final day, which allows patient to escape extreme pain and the physician is not indirectly administering death- which can be psychologically taxing.
Comments
Post a Comment