Introduction
Physician-Assisted Suicide refers to instances where doctors assist patients in ending their lives after terminal illnesses. Recently, incidents of increased terminal illnesses among global patients have been on the rise. For instance, there are vast numbers of cancer patients who are in their final stages and are expected to die in less than a year. The patients suffer immensely from the illnesses and are sure that they cannot heal from the conditions, and it will ultimately lead to death. As a result, there is a preference for ending life among such patients to prevent the agony and suffering that these patients encounter. Controversies surrounding the debate on assisted suicides have been ongoing, with proponents supporting the autonomy and beneficence of the practice to patients suffering from terminal illnesses. However, there have been critics who oppose the execution of PAS based on the contradictory duty of care and protecting life bestowed on physicians.
Legal Issues Surrounding the PAS
End-of-life care has triggered widespread opinions among public members. There are vast numbers of individuals who are concerned about terminal illnesses and the unbearable suffering that one faces. This leads to a faction of society that believes that there is a need to allow individuals to terminate their lives to prevent agony and suffering experienced by terminal illnesses. They acknowledge the role of physicians in identifying the patient’s condition and extent of terminal illness and advise on the likely complications and suffering that the patient could face. As a result, the supporting faction of PAS believes that physicians must help patients to be in a good state and evade the pain and suffering that emanates from terminal illness conditions by helping them to end their lives. However, this has been a contradictory point because the legal framework is predicated on protecting lives. The constitution safeguards the rights of living by articulating that no one has the right to take lives. This would affect medical professionals even in cases where patients request aid in the termination of their lives. The physicians must comply with state and federal laws and thus cannot engage in any action that could result in lawsuits.
In the US, there are diverse perceptions of physician-assisted suicides. Some states allow its execution, while other states do not support its execution. However, some legislation and procedures are reinforced to ascertain that the practice is executed competently and in accordance with the law. The legal requirements for the execution of PAS outline that PAS should be executed based on the prevalence of terminal illness. Additionally, the patient should have a limited life expectancy, such as less than six months. This leads to an implication of suffering, with the obvious outcome being death in a shorter period. With the patient’s competence in decision-making which is enhanced by awareness of his or her situation, the patient requests the physician to aid in merciful death through administration of lethal medicine. While working within the states that allow the execution of PAS, medical professionals have to respect the laws and reinforcements that act as guidelines in implementing the procedures.
Besides, the issue of PAS has raised vast concerns about patient’s autonomy and liberties. A prime example of the legal arguments that arise from the PAS contention is demonstrated in the lawsuit of Compassion in Dying v. State of Washington (Burnett, 1997). Autonomy is discussed as a patient’s right to make personal life decisions. It includes the ideology of being competent in making decisions on ending life when faced with a terminal illness. In states that allow the patient’s rights to apply for PAS, the physicians have to respect their decisions in ending their lives, although with compliance to set regulations. However, the critics claim that the patients could be faced with depression and undue influences, which can make them decide to end their lives. These arguments form the basis of states that have banned the execution of PAS, and therefore, physicians must comply regardless of the patient’s conditions. Any intention to act against the set state laws would trigger lawsuits and cancellation of the medical professional license. In the states that allow the execution of PAS, individuals must be assessed for competence and evaluate the likelihood of manipulation or coercion toward end-of-life decisions.
Similarly, legal viewpoints would play a vital part in respect for an individual’s privacy. The medical practitioners would have to respect the patient’s condition and avoid any implications arising from disclosing personal information. This comprises medical conditions such as the terminal illness type and the projected lifespan for the patient. Healthcare policies that consider individual liberties protection are also vital elements that shape PAS. They help identify how doctors should deal with patient data even after a decision is made (Roberts, 2018). Access to safe and secure health services is another prime legal implication in healthcare while dealing with PAS concerns.
Ethical Views and Issues
Physician-assisted Suicides have raised ethical and moral considerations in life and the rationale for ending it. Ethical considerations are based on an individual’s autonomy, the right to decide and control one’s life. This is depicted in the timing and way one desires to die. According to this approach, people should be granted the right to choose when to die when they feel they are discontent with life. They have a right to choose end-of-life care with voluntary personal decisions. Further, ethics shape the PAS through the principles of beneficence and justice (Marcuccio & McCollum, 2015). The beneficence principle argues that PAS helps alleviate the patient’s agony from a terminal illness. Since the conditions are irreversible, they are considered to pose unbearable suffering to the patients. This suffering calls for an approach that can help serve justice in preventing extensive suffering, which eradicates the intense distress experienced by the patient. Therefore, ethics-oriented individuals could concur that PAS is a passionate way to alleviate the pain of patients’ suffering. Besides, the execution of PAS is labeled as a merciful death, which shows compassion for humans. Ethics shape communication toward achieving end-of-life decisions through transparency and respect for the patient. This aspect is maintained through observing transparent communication among the stakeholders, patient, and physician in the end-of-life incident.
The moral concerns that shape PAS are predicated on the abuse of the right to live. The ethicists contend that life is divine and each individual has the right to end life or facilitate death. As a result, moral guidelines affirm that no situation forces an individual to end life prematurely. Life is perceived as a sanctified element with intrinsic value and should be protected. The facilitators of death should be treated as murderers under the moral approach. This is a vital approach to the PAS issue since physicians can be afraid to violate the moral compass in society. As a result, some would reject any efforts that are inclined toward ending the life of a patient. This affects the medical professionals acting in a region to identify the community beliefs and morals that surround life and death. The other moral approach of ethicists in this concern would articulate that the role of physicians and medical professionals is to save lives. This would trigger an interpretation that the physicians have no right to engage in actions that trigger death. As a result, the physician’s societal background and the patient’s could trigger complications based on different values and approaches to life and death.
Interprofessionalism Views
The issue of Physician-assisted Suicide has attracted vast disciplines in healthcare. The professionals involved in this debate are widespread, including specialized medical areas, religious leaders, legislators, and other stakeholders. The stakeholders interact with individuals at different levels and collaborate to form an efficient platform for medication and delivering excellent healthcare services. The professionals affect the healthcare sector through the reinforcement of guidelines and principles of operation in routine operations involving duty of care. The professionalism sphere in healthcare should encompass respect for the stakeholders. As a result, medical professionals have to consider the stakeholders’ viewpoint and accord them respect. The respect additionally encompasses respect for all the individual contributions and arguments concerning PAS. Clear communication ensures mutual understanding for the involved parties (Pozgar, 2020). This will ensure that physicians coordinate with other professionals to understand how to deliver optimal patient care with fewer conflicts. As a result, PAS can be comprehensively assessed to align with the professional code of conduct in various circumstances or banned.
One of the prime interprofessional elements in the PAS concern is teamwork. There are vast factors involved in making decisions towards end-of-life care. The decision calls for the collaboration of different teams and professionals to ensure the execution of PAS in a responsible approach. Besides, the collaboration enables the physicians to identify whether there is a violation of any law, code of conduct, or ethics in PAS procedures. Further, medical professionals must ascertain that their actions match the professional code of conduct in achieving shared accountability. The primary obligation of medical practitioners is to save lives and promote quality of life through health. Therefore, healthcare professionals are faced with dilemmas on how to act when dealing with concerns of end-of-life decisions by patients regardless of terminal illnesses. Interested parties, such as legislators, can influence the execution of the PAS procedures. They can lobby for policies that will see the community seek changes in their perception of the PAS.
Conclusion
Physician-Assisted Suicide is a conventional area in the healthcare profession. It has a multi-level approach, which defines the viewpoint of proponents and opponents of its execution. Compassion in Dying V. State of Washington is a remarkable landmark case that led to consideration of issues surrounding the PAS. Although it did not allow the execution of PAS, it triggered an enormous debate on PAS ethical and legal considerations that should be observed. The legal perspective shapes the execution of PAS through either legalization or imposing bans. The decision, from a legal viewpoint, is predicated on the protection of life and the manipulation of patients. In ethics, autonomy and beneficence are prime pillars that can sway the debate on executing the PAS procedures. The merits and respect for individual decisions are considered vital pillars in healthcare delivery by physicians.
References
Burnett, D. T. (1997). Compassion in Dying v. State of Washington: Physician-Assisted Suicide-The Struggle to Reconcile Quality of Life and Sanctity of Life. Regent UL Rev., pp. 8, 153.
Marcuccio, E. A., & McCollum, J. P. (2015). Physician-Assisted Suicide: Moral, Ethical and Legal Considerations. International Journal of Arts & Sciences, 8(5), 177.
Pozgar, G. D. (2020). Legal and ethical essentials of health care administration. Jones & Bartlett Learning.
Roberts, A. H. (2018). Ethics and the Legalization of Physician-Assisted Suicide. Annals of Internal Medicine, 168(11), 834.
write