One of the common arguments is on the issue of morality and dignity. Based on a study “ A National Survey of Physician-Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia in the United States”, physicians asked patients the reason for seeking assisting suicide.4 Primary concerns were not due to the prevention of physical sufferings, but on the loss of control, being a burden on others and loss of dignity.4 This can be supported by statistics from Oregon which reported that 91.4% support the stand due to loss of autonomy, 71.4% on the loss of dignity, 31.4% on the ability to have power to control.5 Medically, dignity refers to people’s right to be valued and treated ethically. Immanuel Kant, a German philosopher of morality and ethics, stated that dignity is paired with the right of self-determination.6 Therefore, dignity is lost when a patient loses his or her perseverance to live and seek suicide as an option. There are many of alternatives for terminally ill patients to control the circumstances of their death.6 Hence, it is wrong to equate dignity with suicide.6 If physicians are able to conduct assisted suicide, it will be considered as dehumanizing since they have the right to judge the worth of a patient’s life and purposely quicken his or her death.7 Dr. Patrick Lee, who is a chair in bioethics at the Franciscan University of Steubenville, stated that assisting suicide contradicts the intrinsic good of an innocent person so it considered morally wrong.8 All in all, the “death with dignity” act does not help a patient to die with dignity. PAS is also considered risky. Despite starting out to relieve patients’ sufferings, the programs conducted will eventually gear towards a slippery slope. Physicians start out having the mentality that they are not killing the patients but granting them death.9 Hence, it is perceived as a moral and noble act.9 However, legalizing PAS will create a slippery slope and lead to physicians killing patients without their consent. Being a guideline to physicians’ ethics, Hippocratic oath states that physicians are not allowed to harm a patient and give a lethal medicine to anyone or suggest it to anyone.10 As such, physicians should not play an active part in ending a patient’s life, but as a provider for their medical and psychological needs. In other countries, like the Netherlands, patients who take part in PAS are not aware or do not understand what is being done to them.9 This show that PAS will eventually evolve into euthanasia, which happens when the physicians act directly without a patient’s administration.9,11 There is a fine line between them, which will ultimately bring the corruption to the system. There have been cases where patients’ family and friends have convinced the patient to seek PAS in order for them to lessen their financial and emotional burden.9 PAS is seen as a quick way out and rather than for the well-being of the patient. The slippery slope will become prominent among …show more content…
Firstly, dying through PAS does not mean the patients will die with dignity. It contradicts the true meaning of living to exist. Secondly, PAS poses social problems such as euthanasia where physicians will be able to have the power to decide how long a patient will live. It will betray equality and human dignity.7 Besides, physicians should always be there to serve and not to kill or harm a patient.9 Lastly, safeguards may be set to ensure the “death with dignity” act is conducted properly. However, it has been shown that these safeguards have many loopholes, which will be taken advantage of, that eventually lead to failure of the system and changes to the culture’s views towards