Imagine living with a terminal illness, enduring excruciating pain daily, knowing there is no hope for recovery. You face an inevitable death, but with each passing moment, your suffering becomes more intolerable. The days pass on and minutes feel like hours as you endure an endless torture. In such circumstances, should you not have the right to choose a dignified end? This is the heart of the debate surrounding physician-assisted suicide (PAS), a practice that deserves support for its respect for patient autonomy, relief of suffering, safety, and economic benefits.
Physician-assisted suicide fundamentally respects patient autonomy, a cornerstone of modern medical ethics. Patients accustomed to making their health care decisions should also control their end-of-life choices. As highlighted in the National Institute of Health, “autonomy undeniably exerts the most influence on current US medical practice.” Patients like Brittany Maynard, who faced terminal brain cancer, exemplify this: “I do not want to die. But I am dying. And I want to die on my own terms.” Thus, there is necessity to allow patients to choose a dignified end, reflecting their lifelong values and decisions.
Relief of suffering is another compelling argument for PAS. Terminal illnesses often bring unbearable pain and suffering that even the best care cannot alleviate. Advocates argue that PAS is humane and compassionate, offering a way to end suffering when all other options have failed. The case of Maynard, again, serves as a powerful example: despite receiving excellent care, her suffering was immense, and PAS provided a merciful end.
Furthermore, PAS is not just a compassionate choice, it is also a safe medical practice. Unlike other means of suicide, which can be violent and traumatic, PAS allows for a peaceful and controlled death. Strict safeguards are in place to ensure that the decision is autonomous and free from coercion. These include informing patients of all end-of-life options, requiring two witnesses to confirm the request, and ensuring the patient can self-administer the lethal medication. These measures make PAS a safe and regulated option for those seeking to end their suffering.
Economic considerations further bolster the case for PAS. Terminal illnesses often lead to escalating medical costs due to aggressive treatments and prolonged hospital stays. Coming from the child of two critical care physicians, the choice to keep these people hooked up to life machines places an immense financial burden on families. Children are left in generation debt because of this, a cycle my parents have witnessed time and time again. By choosing PAS, patients and their families can avoid this. Moreover, according to an essay from Augustana College, “If 2.7% of patients that die each year would reduce nearly for weeks of their lives by choosing PAS, that would equate to a savings of $990 million on healthcare spending each year.” If PAS is federally legalized, these savings could be reallocated to other healthcare needs, benefiting society.
However, critics argue that PAS conflicts with the role of medical professionals. The Hippocratic Oath, historically taken by physicians, includes a pledge to “do no harm.” Some interpret this as an absolute prohibition against taking any action that intentionally ends a life. From this perspective, PAS is seen as an unethical practice that undermines the trust between patients and doctors.
Additionally, opponents assert that PAS may lead to a slippery slope, where the practice could be extended beyond terminally ill patients. According to the Pew Research Center, Dr. Leon Kass states, “Once we give doctors the right to kill, we will no longer be able to trust our healers to always heal.” However, evidence from places where PAS is legal, such as Oregon, shows that strict regulations prevent such abuse. Concerns about suicide contagion are also overstated. Studies indicate that high-profile cases like Maynard’s do not significantly influence overall suicide rates, suggesting that PAS does not encourage unrelated suicides.
In conclusion, physician-assisted suicide is a humane, safe, and economically sound practice that respects patient autonomy and relieves suffering. It offers a dignified end for those facing terminal illnesses, reflecting their right to make decisions about their own lives. As society evolves and medical ethics continue to prioritize patient autonomy, supporting PAS is not just a compassionate choice—it is a necessary one. According to the National Library of Medicine, in the words of a Sue Rodriguez, a right-to-die-activist, “If I cannot give consent to my own death, whose body is this? Who owns my life?”
