Assisted Suicide: Rights and Ethics

A renowned and well-known figure in Europe, Francis Bacon (1561-1626), was the first to try this practice and believed that the practice of medicine should include the knowledge and skill that enable doctors to help patients die peacefully and naturally (Vanderpool).

Introduction

However, Bacon did not advocate for assisted suicide; instead, he believed in the Christian faith, stating, “The ‘sweetest song’ at the time of death, he said, is ‘Nunc dimittis … Lord, now let thy servant depart in peace” (Vanderpool).

The debate surrounding the legality of assisted suicide is a complex one, characterized by differing opinions between the public, experienced patients, and physicians.

The crux of the issue lies in the belief held by many that individuals deserve the right to decide whether they want to consider and commit assisted suicide. On the other hand, some argue that legalizing assisted suicide could lead to its widespread use among terminally ill patients, potentially eroding ethical standards in healthcare.

Potential Solutions

Without a compromise or middle ground, many terminally ill patients seeking relief from their suffering may find themselves trapped in pain and discomfort. One possible agreement could involve compelling the courts to establish boundaries and restrictions on the circumstances under which a patient may consider assisted suicide. For instance, a mental evaluation could be mandated to verify the patient's stability and awareness, ensuring that the option is not exploited by individuals who could benefit from treatment. Additionally, if a patient is predicted to pass away within six months or less, they could be granted the option of assisted suicide. Ultimately, the courts should make the final decision on whether the patient is permitted to proceed.

Mental Evaluation

A compromise that both sides might accept is conducting a mental evaluation for terminally ill patients opting for assisted suicide. This evaluation would occur before the patient undergoes the process, potentially reducing the number of vulnerable individuals seeking assisted suicide by assessing their genuine intentions. For example, a patient who has come to terms with their illness and recognizes the suffering it entails would likely be in an ideal state of mind for such a decision. Conversely, a patient experiencing depression might not be in the right mental state to undergo assisted suicide. This solution could help identify vulnerable individuals at risk of manipulation, addressing concerns about widespread assisted suicide among susceptible patients.

Consider the story of a patient who, although lacking a mental evaluation, consciously approached dying with dignity and grace. This underscores the importance of a rational state of mind when dealing with a terminal illness, highlighting why mental evaluations should be mandatory. While this solution has strengths and weaknesses, such as identifying patients seeking relief from pain rather than those motivated by depression, it remains a reasonable compromise. It allows terminally ill patients the option of assisted suicide while minimizing vulnerability.

Timeframe for Eligibility

Another potential solution is allowing patients predicted to pass away within six months or less to consider assisted suicide. By limiting the option to those with a specific time frame, this approach could reduce the prevalence of assisted suicide. States that have legalized assisted suicide often implement similar criteria, as seen in the article "How Death with Dignity Laws Work" by Death with Dignity, which states that eligibility requires a terminal illness with a life expectancy of six months or less.

While this solution has its merits, such as preventing widespread assisted suicide, it also presents challenges. Patients experiencing unbearable pain may be denied relief if their diagnosis falls outside the specified timeframe. Although this compromise favors legalization, it may not adequately protect vulnerable patients predicted to pass away in six months or less.

Court Involvement

A third solution involves removing doctors from the decision-making process and allowing the courts to determine whether a terminally ill patient can proceed with assisted suicide. This approach ensures that patients make autonomous decisions, free from potential manipulation by their doctors. As the article "The Right to Assisted Suicide" from Lone Star College explains, the doctor-patient relationship could foster distrust, with patients potentially influenced by their doctors' opinions.

By transferring decision-making authority to the courts, this solution seeks to prevent manipulation while still permitting assisted suicide. However, it has its drawbacks, as courts and juries may harbor biases or override patients' wishes, perpetuating suffering. While not ideal, this compromise balances both sides' concerns, though it does not fully eliminate the risk of manipulation.

Conclusion

Ultimately, the best compromise for both sides involves combining the mental evaluation and six-month timeframe solutions. This approach allows terminally ill patients predicted to pass away in six months or less to consider assisted suicide, provided they undergo a mental evaluation. By doing so, it reduces potential abuse by vulnerable patients while ensuring those who choose this option are making informed decisions for the right reasons.

In conclusion, assisted suicide should be legalized to relieve terminally ill patients of their suffering. Three potential solutions to reconcile opposing viewpoints include mandating mental evaluations, limiting eligibility to those with a six-month prognosis, and involving the courts in decision-making. By merging the first two solutions, both sides can find common ground, allowing assisted suicide while safeguarding vulnerable patients from exploitation.

Did you like this example?

1627

68