Physician Assisted Suicide

What does it mean to be alive? Medically, it’s the beating of the heart, and little more. But what is living, really? It’s difficult to believe that anyone would call a slow death in a state of constant agony a life. In modern society, we have so much control over so many things: we chose to pursue our own professions, we choose to get married, and women can chose to have children. And we should be able, ultimately, to die a graceful and swift death, simply because it is our choice. For these reasons, I stand before you to argue in favor of the legalization of physician assisted suicide for adults with terminal diagnoses. However, it’s important to note from the beginning that this change in policy must be accompanied by several limitations. First, physician assisted suicide should only be an option for those with terminal diagnoses verified by two registered doctors. Secondly, the patient must be aware of his/her diagnosis for 3 months or more, to avoid making decisions based on depression.
In the United States alone, hundreds of thousands live with a terminal illness diagnosis, defined generally as an active and progressive illness for which there is no cure and the prognosis is fatal. Many linger for years, feeling that they are a burden to their families. United States law currently forbids physician assisted suicide but permits doctors to administer drugs so that, to quote the 1997 Supreme Court ruling, “death is hastened.”
Evidence exists that this practice may happen in hospitals across the country, with or without legal prerogative. The New York Times reported that 4 out of 5 American doctors working in adult ICUs have withheld treatment they felt was futile. So far, judiciaries have decided that it is morally impermissible to assist a dying patient in ending their suffering, but permissible to force someone to live if they chose not to. Two thirds of Americans are in favor of the right of a patient to end his or her life, but they are much more closely divided on the issue of whether it is a doctor’s right to assist them, a Gallup poll giving PAS rights the slight upper hand in popular opinion, at 56%. However, by soliciting the assistance of a medical professional, a person can die a much more humane and painless death. Essentially, it is a kinder means to the same end.
Much of the opposition to physician assisted suicide comes from religious groups. But it is the mark of an advanced society to uphold an individual’s rights above the roar of the crowd. The United States government can and has moved controversial issues out of the jurisdiction of the states. Abortion is the most prominent example, and the one most often compared to the right to physician assisted suicide. However, while abortion rights arguably involve another individual, physician assisted suicide is solely an individual issue, in which no other parties are involved. Politics have no place in this arena of private life: it’s a medical issue between a patient and a doctor.
Many terminal patients worry about the profound debt left to their families from their care. The government will tell you to that you have to live, but it won’t be there when your family is left with tens of thousands of dollars in unpaid medical expenses. End of life care also ties up doctors and nurses, creating a sharp decline in the quality of care for all patients. 40% of Medicare costs are spent in the last 30 days of a patient’s life, and this figure doesn’t even express the decline of unusually slow diseases. And all for individuals who didn’t chose to continue living in such a state.
Furthermore, physician assisted suicide is not without legal precedent. In 1997, Oregon passed a law legalizing the practice, followed by Washington. Belgium, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, and Switzerland also legalize the practice. Opponents of physician assisted suicide contend that hospitals will become death clinics for the depressed. However, the Economist reported in 2005 that physician assisted suicide accounted for a fraction of .01% of deaths in Oregon, where it is legal. Switzerland has a similarly low rate. It’s important to remember that the stipulations accompanying the legalization of physician assisted suicide make it highly uncommon. Many think of Teri Schiavo when reminded of this issue, her fate in the hands of others, unable to express her opinion on her own mortality. However, physician assisted suicide is only available to individuals who can express their own consent, eliminating many of the potential abuses in the practice. It is important to look at the law in the context of practicality, but it is more important to look at it in the context of morality: just because it has the potential for abuse does not mean it is morally correct.
It’s difficult to think about when you are so young, but any one of us may at some time be faced with a difficult situation of this nature. Physician assisted suicide may seem cold, but it is the kindest option for some. Everyone has the right to a nonviolent end, when they can still recognize their family members, and keep their dignity. Banning physician assisted suicide is a direct breach of personal autonomy. What we have to ask ourselves is whether we are willing to allow the government to stick its hand into our personal, medical situations. Whether we will allow the government to tell us our morality: or whether will decide it for ourselves.