What Is Physician Assisted Suicide?

I. Physician-assisted suicide, under various names and colloquial definitions, has been a documented ethical issue for centuries – not to mention an undocumented ethical issue since the hypothetical dawn of life. By common understanding, physician-assisted suicide is death either directly or indirectly permitted or carried out by a physician. In simple terms, an “out” is provided. For this reason, it is often associated with chronic pain or terminal illness. Suicide where the doctor in charge is directly involved is perhaps the first situation which comes to mind when one thinks of euthanasia. This includes cases such as those in which the physician injects the consenting patient with a lethal substance in order to end their life. While this is the most well-known of methods, it is (arguably) not the most common. Oftentimes, physicians will perform an assisted suicide indirectly, say, through means of leaving a perfectly lethal dose of prescription medication within arms-reach of a suicidal patient, knowing full well what will happen. While physician-assisted suicide has been a relevant concept to society for centuries, its commonality and notoriety are ever-increasing. In more recent years, assisted suicide has gained momentum, often credited to Dr. Jack Kevorkian as he was one of the first to champion for the patient’s right to die, circa 1960. In more recent years, cases of indirect euthanasia include Terri Schiavo and Tracy Latimer. Schiavo, a Florida woman in a persistent vegetative state, was unhooked from her nutrition tubes by order of her husband and legal guardian. Tracy Latimer, a young girl from Saskatchewan, was killed by her father in order to end her chronic suffering with severe cerebral palsy. These cases, while not directly physician-assisted suicides, outline the importance of a patient’s right to die. II. …show more content…
Any issue centered on life and death is inherently ethical. The very essence of sentience is life. It is life that allows us to communicate, flourish, develop, and think rationally. Life is something that we do not as for but are given anyway. For these reasons, life is often seen as the most sacred of all things. People – especially those of religious conscientiousness – are willing to fight by any means possible to protect it, even when it is not their own. This is why universal laws exist, and suicide is not taken on a case by case basis – which is closer to how it should be handled. The protection of life by any means necessary is, in itself, a paradox. Life is only life if it is worth living, and a life full of suffering is not life. Those who fight to protect life do not see this, however. They see any act of rebellion against the sanctity of life to be unjustified harm. While the end of life is indeed harm, it is not an unjustified harm. If one does not perform the necessary harm then worse agony will follow. This removes the quality, and therefore, validity of life. In another sense, the validity of life is fragile by nature. Validity of life involves autonomy, as validity of life encourages a full and meaningful life through an independent person. When life is blindly fought for, it loses its importance of individuality, thus once again removing the validity of life. While assisted suicide does potentially remove autonomy from the patient (such in the technical cases of Schiavo and Latimer) is also provides the patient their chance to relinquish a life of suffering. Suicide does not have to be performed directly to give a valid end to life. Life and its sanctity are the quintessential ethical dilemma, but on paper, they become quite simple. Give greater autonomy to the patient, and the patient will make the right choice – even when the call is made from someone outside of their person. Enough faith must be placed into the guardian of the patient to trust that their final wishes regarding their death will be carried out. This also calls into question the ethics of the person behind the needle, so to speak. It can be argued that either the guardian or physician, depending on the situation, is playing a type of God. Because they are entrusted with the ultimate value – life – worry over their intentions can surface. Will this person abuse their privilege? Because humans are inherently good, we can infer that no, they will not abuse their privilege. They have a Good Will to carry out