Doctor Assisted Suicide Name Fatima Alsanonahin Structure Ch

12doctor Assisted Suicidename Fatima Alsanonahinstructure Christa Ji

Doctor-Assisted Suicide Name: Fatima Alsanonah Instructure: Christa Jiamachello Physician-assisted suicide refers to the deliberate act of competent individuals terminating their lives via lethal injections provided by physicians. According to the New England Journal of Medicine (2013), physician-assisted suicide is very different from euthanasia. This is because apart for being a necessary evil and also a violation of the fundamental tenets of medicine, physician-assisted suicide has its opponents and proponents. Therefore, I support Physician-assisted Suicide because it is better than suffering. There are various reasons appertaining as to why I argue in support for doctor-assisted suicides.

For instance, physician-assisted suicide grants and ensures patient’s autonomy, which is a key component of beneficence principle. According to Quill and Greenlaw (2008), patients should have the freedom and right to influence the circumstances of their lives, determine how much suffering is enough and decide their time of death. They also have a right to decide the cause of their death. Therefore, physician assisted-death grants patients this autonomy to choose how long to withstand pain and when to terminate their lives. In so doing, it ensures that terminally ill patients die with the dignity they deserve by providing the necessary aid to facilitate a death of their choice.

Moreover, a painful death characterised of much suffering is never termed as dignified, given the fact that the Belmont principle is established on the "categorical imperative", or the intent to do good and the principle of beneficence. One of the fundamental tenets of medicine is to alleviate suffering by easing the pain or completely eradicating it. However, when the suffering of terminally ill patient fails to be relieved via the use of state-of-the-art palliative care, then it is the moral responsibility of doctors to do everything at their disposal to ensure that the patient suffers no more. In their article: Physician-assisted death, Quill and Greenlaw (2008) argue that hastening the death of the terminally ill patients is the best alternative of alleviating pain because it completely ends it.

It also acts as a sign of mercy and compassion to the suffering patient because it respects the patient’s choice and also ensures that they would not be abandoned. According to Snyder, J.D & Sulmasy (2001), abandonment is one of the greatest fears experienced by terminally ill patients. It serves as one of the greatest causes of existential suffering and thrives on the bases of indignity and hopelessness. Many are the times when sick patients anticipate the experience of being abandoned, and this even causes more suffering. After comparing and contrasting the suffering endured by terminally ill patients with their assisted painless death, one can argue that supporting physician-assisted suicide is justice and promotes transparency and honesty (Coggon, 2006).

Moreover, the principles of Justice requires that like cases be treated as unlike. Just as competent, terminally ill individuals possess the legal right to accept medication, they also have the legal right to decline taking medication that would lengthen their deaths. For suffering patients independent of life support, such as dialysis and respirators, refusing treatment will not suffice to hasten death (Cogon, 2006). Therefore, in order to equitably treat these patients, individuals should permit assisted death because it is their only option to hasten death and alleviate suffering. In conclusion, death is much better than the long-term severe suffering experienced by terminally ill patients.

Therefore, physician-assisted suicide should be allowed because it allows the patient’s autonomy to choose their time of death, and acts as a sign of mercy and compassion to the terminally ill patients. It also ensures that terminally ill patients are justly treated in granting their request to terminate their lives.

References

• Coggon, J. (2006). Arguing about physician-assisted suicide: a response to Steinbock. Journal of Medical Ethics, 32, 123-125.
• Quill, T., & Greenlaw, J. (2008). Chapter 30: Physician-Assisted Death. Retrieved from [source].
• Snyder, J.D., & Sulmasy, D. (2001). Physician Assisted Suicide. Annals of Internal Medicine, 135(3), 234-238.
• The New England Journal of Medicine. (2013). Physician-assisted suicide. 368(15), 1385-1387.

Paper For Above instruction

Physician-assisted suicide (PAS) remains one of the most ethically complex debates in contemporary medicine. Supporters argue that it respects patient autonomy and relieves suffering, whereas opponents highlight potential abuses and moral objections. This paper explores the ethical justification for PAS, emphasizing autonomy, beneficence, justice, and compassion, grounded in relevant medical ethics literature and principles.

Fundamentally, the principle of autonomy underpins the ethical legitimacy of PAS. Respect for patient autonomy asserts that competent individuals have the right to make decisions about their own bodies and lives. In the context of terminal illness, this includes the decision to end one’s life to avoid unbearable suffering. Quill and Greenlaw (2008) emphasize that autonomy encompasses not only the right to refuse treatment but also the right to seek assistance in dying. This autonomy allows terminally ill patients to determine the timing and manner of their death, which preserves their dignity and sense of control amid devastating circumstances.

Moreover, the principle of beneficence mandates that medical professionals should act in the best interest of their patients, which includes alleviating suffering. When palliative care fails to relieve pain and emotional distress, withdrawing or refusing prolonging treatments becomes ethically challenging. As Quill and Greenlaw (2008) argue, hastening death in such cases is a compassionate response that alleviates intractable suffering, highlighting the moral obligation physicians have to relieve pain, even if doing so involves assisting death.

In addition, justice promotes equality and fairness in healthcare. Patients with similar preferences and circumstances should receive similar treatment. The right to refuse treatment is well established, and extending the same right to choose PAS ensures equitable treatment for those suffering intolerably. Denying competent patients the option of assisted death could be interpreted as unfair or discriminatory, especially when it is the only means to relieve their misery. Coggon (2006) advocates that providing access to PAS aligns with justice by respecting individual rights and preventing unjust prolongation of suffering.

Caring for the suffering patient with compassion involves not only alleviating pain but also honoring their dignity and subjective experience. PAS embodies compassion by respecting the patient’s choice and providing a humane end to suffering. Snyder and Sulmasy (2001) recognize that abandonment and hopelessness are significant sources of existential suffering for terminally ill patients. When adequate palliative care cannot fully address their suffering, PAS offers an option rooted in compassion and mercy. It signifies society’s recognition of the patient’s individual experience and rights.

Critics argue that PAS may lead to potential abuse or societal devaluation of life; however, strict safeguards and regulations can mitigate these risks. Proper assessment of patient competency, informed consent, and oversight are essential to ensure ethical compliance. These measures uphold the principles of autonomy and justice while preventing misuse, thus justifying the legal and medical frameworks supporting PAS (Quill & Greenlaw, 2008).

In conclusion, physician-assisted suicide aligns with core principles of medical ethics—autonomy, beneficence, justice, and compassion. Respecting the patient’s informed choice, relieving intractable suffering, ensuring fair treatment, and demonstrating compassion support the ethical legitimacy of PAS. As society continues to evolve, careful implementation of safeguards can balance moral concerns with the compassionate imperative to prevent suffering at the end of life.

References

• Coggon, J. (2006). Arguing about physician-assisted suicide: a response to Steinbock. Journal of Medical Ethics, 32, 123-125.
• Quill, T., & Greenlaw, J. (2008). Chapter 30: Physician-Assisted Death. In the context of medical ethics. Retrieved from [source].
• Snyder, J.D., & Sulmasy, D. (2001). Physician Assisted Suicide. Annals of Internal Medicine, 135(3), 234-238.
• The New England Journal of Medicine. (2013). Physician-assisted suicide. 368(15), 1385-1387.