Should patients with certain conditions like terminal illnesses, unbearable mental or physical suffering be given the right to choose between life and death? Although the topic remains controversial in most parts of the world, Physician Assisted Suicide (acronym PAS) has been legalised in some countries. The number of PAS death has been increasing in these past couple of years in the Netherlands since its legalisation in the country. A non profit organisation in Switzerland called Dignitas has been providing assisted or accompanied suicide to its members, both Swiss and foreign citizens. It even became the subject of a US documentary film called “Suicide Tourist”. Although it has been successfully legalised in these countries mentioned, the arguments that support PAS represent bad moral reasoning, flawed policy and indicate failure in providing palliative care.
Proponents argue that PAS is an act of compassion since it helps the patient end his suffering by terminating his life. This argument shows fallacy at its core because it fails to differentiate between the suffering (or the pain) with the person who suffers. To end someone’s pain is not the same as to end someone’s life. A patient has right to reject certain medical treatments which cause him pain (e.g chemotherapy) even if it might hasten the death, but it is not the same thing as a physician injecting lethal substances into the patient’s body. Killing someone else or oneself is an offence against human, because it harms the intrinsic good of all human beings, which is the life itself. Both physicians and patients have moral obligations to preserve human’s life, not to destroy it.
PAS advocates individual autonomy, but we have to take into consideration the fact that some people might consider to end their lives out of desperation and vulnerability, because they fear that they have become a burden to those around them. In this case, having PAS legalised does not support the individual autonomy, like the proponents intend to. We also need to bear in mind that although some degree of autonomy is necessary in order for people to lead a responsible life, law often limits a person’s liberty freedom with the goal to protect the person himself and the society he is in, for example the prohibition of drunk driving and the obligation to put seatbelts on while driving. Making PAS permissible for people with certain conditions today gives the possibility for people with different conditions to demand the same right tomorrow.
Instead of trying to legalise PAS and makes it easily accessible, we should re-direct our energy into improving the quality of palliative care. Palliative care means therapies or treatments without curative intent, when no cure can be expected. We have to make sure that the dying patients receive the kind of care they are needing and are treated with the most dignified manner possible. Thanks to the modern medicine, it is possible now to alleviate the pain, so the patient won’t suffer too much. It is also important to assure the patients that they are not a burden to their families and friends and for their loved ones to show them support through hard times.
-Hutasoit-
References:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5102187/
https://www.cato-unbound.org/2012/12/14/patrick-lee/say-no-physician-assisted-suicide
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2585714/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palliative_care
Proponents argue that PAS is an act of compassion since it helps the patient end his suffering by terminating his life. This argument shows fallacy at its core because it fails to differentiate between the suffering (or the pain) with the person who suffers. To end someone’s pain is not the same as to end someone’s life. A patient has right to reject certain medical treatments which cause him pain (e.g chemotherapy) even if it might hasten the death, but it is not the same thing as a physician injecting lethal substances into the patient’s body. Killing someone else or oneself is an offence against human, because it harms the intrinsic good of all human beings, which is the life itself. Both physicians and patients have moral obligations to preserve human’s life, not to destroy it.
PAS advocates individual autonomy, but we have to take into consideration the fact that some people might consider to end their lives out of desperation and vulnerability, because they fear that they have become a burden to those around them. In this case, having PAS legalised does not support the individual autonomy, like the proponents intend to. We also need to bear in mind that although some degree of autonomy is necessary in order for people to lead a responsible life, law often limits a person’s liberty freedom with the goal to protect the person himself and the society he is in, for example the prohibition of drunk driving and the obligation to put seatbelts on while driving. Making PAS permissible for people with certain conditions today gives the possibility for people with different conditions to demand the same right tomorrow.
Instead of trying to legalise PAS and makes it easily accessible, we should re-direct our energy into improving the quality of palliative care. Palliative care means therapies or treatments without curative intent, when no cure can be expected. We have to make sure that the dying patients receive the kind of care they are needing and are treated with the most dignified manner possible. Thanks to the modern medicine, it is possible now to alleviate the pain, so the patient won’t suffer too much. It is also important to assure the patients that they are not a burden to their families and friends and for their loved ones to show them support through hard times.
-Hutasoit-
References:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5102187/
https://www.cato-unbound.org/2012/12/14/patrick-lee/say-no-physician-assisted-suicide
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2585714/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palliative_care
