Table of contents
Physician-assisted death, a controversial and emotionally charged topic, sparks intense debates within society. This essay delves into the ethical dimensions surrounding physician-assisted death and presents arguments from both sides of the spectrum. The discussion encompasses the moral, legal, and individual rights aspects of this practice, shedding light on the complexities involved.
The Right to Autonomy and Compassion
One of the fundamental arguments in favor of physician-assisted death is rooted in the concept of individual autonomy. Advocates emphasize that individuals should have the right to make decisions about their own lives, especially when faced with unbearable suffering. In his work "The Future of Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia," John Harris contends that denying individuals the choice to end their lives in a dignified manner infringes upon their autonomy and personal freedom (Harris, 2002). This perspective emphasizes the importance of compassion and empathy for those enduring intractable pain and terminal illnesses.
Supporters of physician-assisted death point to countries like the Netherlands and Belgium, where such practices have been legalized and regulated. The Oregon Death with Dignity Act, enacted in 1997, has also become a focal point for this debate. According to data from the Oregon Public Health Division, the vast majority of individuals who pursue physician-assisted death in the state do so due to a sense of loss of autonomy and an inability to engage in activities that make life enjoyable (Oregon Health Authority, 2021). This evidence underlines the significance of granting patients the agency to make choices about their own lives and deaths.
The Slippery Slope and Sanctity of Life
Opponents of physician-assisted death express concerns about a potential slippery slope, where the practice may expand beyond its intended scope and evolve into involuntary euthanasia or other unethical practices. In his work "Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia: Lessons from Belgium," Leon Kass argues that the normalization of physician-assisted death could undermine the sanctity of life and erode societal values that emphasize the preservation of life (Kass, 2001). This perspective stresses the potential dangers associated with blurring the lines between alleviating suffering and intentionally ending life.
Moreover, opponents often bring religious and moral arguments into the discussion. Religious texts and teachings often emphasize the sanctity of life and the belief that life and death should be in the hands of a higher power. Philosopher Daniel Callahan, in his essay "When Self-Determination Runs Amok," contends that society should prioritize preserving the inherent value of life over individual autonomy (Callahan, 1992). This viewpoint posits that allowing physicians to assist in ending life may fundamentally alter our relationship with mortality and human dignity.
Evolving Legal Landscape and Patient Safeguards
The legality of physician-assisted death varies globally and within different regions of a country. Proponents argue that legalizing and regulating physician-assisted death can establish necessary safeguards to prevent abuses and ensure that the practice is carried out in a responsible manner. In the book "Assisted Death: A Study in Ethics and Law," L.W. Sumner suggests that a carefully designed legal framework can strike a balance between personal autonomy and societal interests (Sumner, 2011). This viewpoint underscores the importance of comprehensive legislation that considers the diverse perspectives on this issue.
The case of Brittany Maynard, a young woman with terminal brain cancer, exemplifies the need for patient-centered laws. Maynard's decision to move to Oregon to access physician-assisted death garnered widespread attention and ignited discussions about end-of-life choices. Her advocacy for the right to die on her terms prompted debates about the necessity of expanding access to physician-assisted death for those facing agonizing circumstances (Sifferlin, 2014). This case highlights the complexity of the issue and the need for legal frameworks that prioritize patient well-being.
Conclusion: Navigating the Ethical Quandary
The debate surrounding physician-assisted death is multifaceted, encompassing considerations of autonomy, compassion, sanctity of life, and legal safeguards. Both sides present compelling arguments that reflect deeply held beliefs and values. As society grapples with this ethical quandary, it is essential to engage in open and respectful discourse, exploring avenues that honor individual rights while safeguarding against potential pitfalls. Ultimately, the decision to legalize or prohibit physician-assisted death will shape our understanding of human dignity, autonomy, and the sanctity of life.
Callahan, D. (1992). When Self-Determination Runs Amok. The Hastings Center Report, 22(2), 52-55.
Harris, J. (2002). The Future of Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia. International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics, 76(3), 335-343.
Kass, L. R. (2001). Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia: Lessons from Belgium. Issues in Law & Medicine, 17(3), 187-204.
Oregon Health Authority. (2021). Oregon Death with Dignity Act: 2020 Data Summary. Retrieved from https://www.oregon.gov/oha/PH/PROVIDERPARTNERRESOURCES/EVALUATIONRESEARCH/DEATHWITHDIGNITYACT/Documents/year23.pdf
Sifferlin, A. (2014). Brittany Maynard's Final Days: A Timeline. Time. Retrieved from https://time.com/3554383/brittany-maynard-death/
Sumner, L. W. (2011). Assisted Death: A Study in Ethics and Law. Oxford University Press.
Cite this Essay
To export a reference to this article please select a referencing style below