Physician Assisted Suicide

Physician-Assisted Suicide:

Right or Wrong?

Sarah J. Chance

Research Writing, 1202 WRTG 291

Professor Scrupski

February 20, 2012

Physician-Assisted Suicide:

Right or Wrong?

For many years, the topic of physician-assisted suicide, also referred to as "rational suicide," has been a hot topic of debate, especially after the well known case in the United States, involving Jack Kevorkian. Kevorkian was a physician, who in the 1990s, was jailed for his role in assisting in the deaths of 130 terminally ill patients. The topic of this issue had hardly been discussed, and credit is given to Kevorkian for bringing this highly debatable issue to the table for people of all origins to consider. He brought about a movement that led many lawmakers and the general public to evaluate their views on this subject.

Kevorkian believed that it is the responsibility of physicians to alleviate their patients' suffering, even if it meant allowing the patients to die, at their own choosing (Kevorkian). Physician-assisted suicide is a serious issue that should not be taken lightly; however, when a person is suffering indefinitely from chronic pain and/or a terminal illness, they should have the right to make the decision of whether or not they want to continue living in that manner. Just as patients are given the right to refuse medical treatment that could save their lives, they should also have the option to choose physician-assisted suicide if they meet specific criteria and are mentally capable of making that decision for their self.

Physician-assisted suicide is highly controversial, and no matter what side a person takes, there are numerous reasons used in backing up their opinions. In Carl Wellman's "A Legal Right to Physician-Assisted Suicide Defended," Wellman goes on to discuss various reasons as to why physician-assisted suicide should be a legal right for those who are "enduring intolerable un-relievable suffering or who are terminally ill" (20). Legalizing physician-assisted suicide would enable those qualified patients to "avoid unnecessary suffering" and would also enable those who are qualified to "die with dignity" (23). Some patients believe that the manner in which one dies can profoundly affect the meaning of their death, and would therefore affect the significance of their life. A patient should be able to choose how they want others to remember them in the last days, hours, or minutes, of their life (Wellman, 2003). Much like those who are on life support have the capability to refuse continued treatment which would in turn end their lives, people who are suffering severely should have the option of physician-assisted suicide to end their lives as well. Wellman believes that along with having the legal right to physician-assisted suicide, there must be a complex legal structure involved that covers the legal rights, duties and liberties of those impacted in this decision, giving legal rights and responsibilities to both the patient and the physician. For example, it is a legal duty of others that they will not attempt to coerce or place undue influence on the patient, in an attempt to push them into medical assisted suicide in order to end their own lives. In this complex structure, Wellman also states that the physicians are due legal liberties of having the choice of whether or not they will provide this type of medical assistance. A physician who does not morally believe in assisting in suicide should not be forced into doing so (21).

Just as Wellman states that there should be legal guidelines when it comes to physician-assisted suicide, terminology in our Constitution leads many to believe that there is no way to legally ban the practice. In a paper written by J.M. Dieterle, professor of History and Philosophy at Eastern Michigan University, he states that no argument opposing physician- assisted suicide has merit. In other words, the arguments are not strong enough to give a good enough reason not to legalize it (127). A major argument made by proponents of legalizing physician-assisted suicide is that not legalizing it would be a direct violation of The Establishment Clause (Rubin, 2010). In general, the Establishment Clause prohibits Congress from making laws that are designed to show preferential treatment over one religion from another. The only way to constitutionally make a law against physician-assisted suicide would be if the prohibition is secular based and independent of any religious doctrine. In arguing against the rationale that assisted suicide is offering an excuse for murder, Edward Rubin, Professor of Law and Political Science at Vanderbilt University, makes an excellent point when he states that assisted suicide can be distinguished from murder because of the fact that there would be individual consent, the same principle that distinguishes sex from rape (811).

As much as there are strong feelings for legalizing physician-assisted suicide, there are also numerous groups who have feelings just as strong against legalizing physician-assisted suicide. Some of these reasons are based on religious and spiritual beliefs, while others feel strongly against it because of the impact and discriminatory effects it would have on certain vulnerable groups, such as those who are disabled and elderly people who may feel as though they have become a physical, mental, and financial burden on their family members.

A number of religious groups are opposed to suicide, whether enacted on their own, or with the help of a physician, because of the notion that human life is sacred. The Evangelical Congregational Church states that "God, and God alone, has the right to determine the moment of death.....oppose any effort to terminate innocent life outside of the natural processes...." The Roman Catholic Church also declares that "...no one is permitted to ask for this act of killing, either for himself or herself or for another person entrusted