Pros And Cons Of Physician Assisted Death

The issue of whether critically ill patients should be permitted to seek the doctor’s assistance in removing their extreme sufferings by putting an end to their lives continues to be debated heatedly with the same intensity as it has always been done for the last several decades. In fact, the last few years have seen the debate getting more intensified because of enhanced perceptions about its significance in the American political scenario. So far, physician assisted death in America has mostly been prohibited legally through the introduction of statutory laws or through the application of detailed statutes. Nevertheless, attempts have always been made by different sections of society to change the laws through the adoption of different legal …show more content…
People arguing in favor of it cite patient independence, kindness and non-abandonment. They hold that patients ought to be given the right to decide about their own death and to decide the extent of suffering they can cope with. If the patient does not get relief even with the most advanced medical practices, the medical practitioner is duty bound to do all within his limits to eliminate such hardships, even if it involves quickening the dying process provided other treatment options are not acceptable to the patient. In terms of non-abandonment, the physician has to ensure that the dying process goes through responsively by outweighing the other limitations during such trying circumstances. The main arguments given against physician assisted death are the lack of justification of killing, medical practitioner integrity and risks associated with abusing the liberty available to the physician. Intentionally assisting the patient to die is considered to be morally wrong because advanced methods of palliative care are available, which do not warrant physician assisted death to the patient under any circumstances. All physicians work under oath to never cause intentional harm to a patient and assisting patient death breaches their professional code of conduct and undermines the trust that is required to be maintained between patient and doctor. The fact remains that giving …show more content…
Oregon case because right to death issues had started surfacing in the country’s political scene. The verdict was given more in clarifying the issues emanating from the implementation of the Controlled Substances Act, which the federal government was unable to implement in Oregon because of the state sponsored laws relative to the use of drugs to facilitate physicians in assisting patient-death. Politics apart, it is felt that legalizing physician-assisted death of terminally ill patients is not a decision in the right direction because with rapid advancement of medical technology and methods, there are now better and more effective ways of treatment that offer the promise of lesser pain and suffering. As a society we have to be optimistic and not give the dying patient an impression that there is no hope for him. Pain and suffering can be reduced with several medical interventions and physicians have varied options to try in treating their patients. Above all, the practice is morally wrong because it is a sign of defeat in accepting that there is no other solution. In addition, legalization of the practice will create the urge in many terminally ill patients to opt for ending their lives, thus establishing a wrong social