Ethical Considerations in Physician-Assisted Euthanasia

The role of a physician is often perceived as a fulfilling and dynamic career. Nevertheless, it involves making challenging decisions that may have profound emotional impacts on numerous individuals. The morality of physician-assisted euthanasia and suicide is one of those contentious topics that stirs deep ethical debates. While some view these practices as inherently immoral and wrong, they can be seen as a compassionate option to alleviate the suffering of terminally ill patients. Consider the case of terminal illnesses such as advanced-stage cancer, which entails severe pain and an inevitable decline.

Patients in such conditions are frequently confronted with the bleak reality communicated by their doctors: "There is nothing more we can do for you." At this juncture, patients face the difficult decision of whether to continue living or to choose a dignified end through assisted suicide or euthanasia. In some U.S. states, including Oregon, California, Colorado, Vermont, the District of Columbia, and Washington, physician aid-in-dying is legally sanctioned. This permits doctors to provide patients with life-ending medications, although the patients must self-administer the drugs. Conversely, euthanasia, where physicians directly administer the medication, remains illegal in the U.S. but is permitted in countries such as the Netherlands, Luxembourg, and Belgium (Jaret, 2018).

Despite the legal framework, the ethical debate remains unresolved. The law does not dictate the morality of procedures like assisted suicide or euthanasia. Opinions are divided, with some people in regions where such practices are illegal advocating for their legalization, while others in areas where it is legal call for its prohibition (Thames, 2018, Sec.7.4). Although states can legalize assisted suicide, they cannot compel doctors to participate against their will. This essay will explore whether lawmakers are morally obligated to protect the rights of doctors who choose not to partake in euthanasia or assisted suicide.

Understanding Utilitarianism

Utilitarianism is an ethical framework that evaluates actions, laws, or policies based on their utility, defined as their capacity to generate the greatest positive value and least negative value compared to other alternatives (Thames, 2018, Sec.3.1). Jeremy Bentham, the British philosopher who founded utilitarianism, posited a hedonistic perspective that equates value with happiness or unhappiness, pleasure with the good, and pain with the bad. John Stuart Mill, a prominent disciple of Bentham, further articulated these ideas, sometimes confronting criticisms with bluntness.

Utilitarianism is a branch of consequentialism, a philosophy that judges the morality of an action by its outcomes. It emphasizes considering the welfare of everyone affected by a decision. For instance, if choosing a sundae topping only affects one person, the decision would ideally aim to maximize that individual's happiness. However, in scenarios where a decision impacts others, utilitarianism advocates for choices that yield the greatest overall happiness.

Application of Utilitarianism to the Ethical Dilemma

Utilitarianism's core tenet of maximizing happiness and minimizing suffering can provide a lens through which to view the ethical question of whether doctors should have the option to opt out of assisted euthanasia/suicide. If a physician's refusal to participate results in increased pain and suffering for a terminally ill patient, then, from a utilitarian perspective, such an opt-out could be considered morally problematic. The inevitability of death underscores a physician's moral duty to relieve suffering and honor patients' wishes to die with dignity. For many terminally ill patients, the suffering they endure is intolerable, and their final wishes should be respected and fulfilled. The moral justification for physician-assisted euthanasia or suicide, as perceived by some, lies in its potential to alleviate unbearable pain and fulfill a patient's end-of-life desires (Pies, 2018).

Consider a poignant scenario: a grandmother's clear final wish was to avoid intensive care and mechanical life support, opting instead for physician-assisted dying as she battled aspiration pneumonia. Her caregiver's failure to honor her request left her in a coma, only to awaken later in excruciating pain with no recourse for relief (Forest, 2017). This example highlights the ethical dilemma faced by doctors who, by adhering to the grandmother’s wishes, could have facilitated a dignified end, thus minimizing her suffering.

Conclusion

The question of whether doctors should have the right to opt out of assisting with euthanasia or suicide is deeply complex and multifaceted. When viewed through a utilitarian lens, the ethical imperative to minimize suffering and respect patient autonomy is compelling. Physicians are entrusted with the profound responsibility of alleviating pain and facilitating dignified deaths, aligning with the greater good. However, it is equally vital to acknowledge the moral convictions of doctors who oppose participating in such practices. Balancing these perspectives necessitates a nuanced understanding of the ethical landscape and respect for individual beliefs within the medical profession. Ultimately, the decision should reflect a compassionate interplay between patient rights and physician autonomy, striving for a harmonious resolution that honors the dignity of all involved.

Did you like this example?

231

12