Bioethics is considered by some to be the decisions made by a person or group using logic and knowledge of right or wrong as it affects current biological issues. It is a growing concern in today’s world where people are caught in a balancing act of human nature and law to determine right and wrong regarding biological and medical issues concerning them. A bioethical issue that has been around for years is physician aid in death. Although this issue is said to give terminally ill patients the comfort and dignity of ending their lives on the terms they choose, some say that decisions are influenced by doctors and infringe upon human rights.
Physician aided death is a general term that covers assisted suicide, voluntary active euthanasia, involuntary active euthanasia, and non-voluntary euthanasia (Boyd, Boyd, and Grande). Many people consider all of these actions to be in violation of the doctors Hippocratic Oath, while others find some of these actions to fall under the guidelines of the Hippocratic Oath. Influential figures of this bioethical issue include the infamous Dr. Jack Kevorkian who advocated assisted suicide and was taken to trial five times to be convicted of only one murder, the murder of Thomas Youk (Jack Kevorkian).
Dr.Timothy Quill advocates the issue from a compassionate side where he believes that a person should have the right to a dignified death (Boyd, Boyd, and Grande). Dr. Kevorkian found assisted suicide to be more of a research topic than an ethical issue. He was interested in the science of death and how it could help future medicine. The opposition of the idea uses him as an example as to why they believe physician aide in death is wrong. However, the side advocating the issue uses Dr. Timothy Quill to help prove their point. The opposition of physician aided death says it is a violation of the Hippocratic Oath.
The original Hippocratic Oath, created by Hippocrates prohibited euthanasia (Tyson). The opposition uses this as a key point to their stance on physician aided death. They also believe that it is a threat to the protection of all life. They call this the “slippery slope claim. ” Some on this side fear that financial costs of treatment may lead to a patient’s quick decision toward assisted suicide. They feel that in some situations, the patient may not be in a stable mental state based on the effects of the disease itself and outside pressures.
The opposition of assisted suicide believes this will lead to assisted suicide rights spreading to the disabled or mentally able adults who are not terminally ill. (Boyd, Boyd, and Grande) They also fear involuntary euthanasia where the family of a patient will ask a doctor to administer a lethal dose of a poison to end the life of a patient who is unable to speak for themself at the time. This is different from a do not resuscitate request on the grounds that the doctor will be ending the life instead of allowing the life to end itself.
Another argument made by this side is based on the trust bond between a patient and their physician. In the case of a terminally ill patient, a physician cannot cure the disease and completely relieve symptoms. (Boyd, Boyd, and Grande) The opposition of physician aided death asks the question of how would a new patient feel if they knew that their physician allowed a patient to decide upon suicide and assisted in the act. The opposition believes that this may cause a loss of trust in doctors and lead a patient to not receive proper care.
Lastly, the opposition argue that physician aided death is in violation of the Hippocratic Oath because the oath contains a maxim that a physician must do no harm. (Boyd, Boyd, and Grande) The argument made claims that in a case of physician aided death, suicide is considered harm, and by adjusting the use of medicine to allow suicide, in turn the physician is doing harm to the patient. The advocators of physician aided death provide many arguments to back their stance on the issue as well. Dr. Timothy Quill advocates the issue on the grounds of human compassion.
(Boyd, Boyd, and Grande) He feels that if a terminally ill patient was suffering and asked for assistance in their choice for suicide, a natural feeling of compassion could emerge where a doctor may feel sympathetic towards the patient. Quill however believes that the choice must be evaluated and discussed. Many terminally ill patients are consumed by spiritual issues, psychosocial problems, and clinical depression. (Boyd, Boyd, and Grande) Quill claims that these problems can lead to irrational decisions by the patient that are not questioned or discussed.
He feels that if the option of assisted suicide is pondered, it must be adequately questioned and the patient must be in a stable mind state. (Boyd, Boyd, and Grande) For many advocators, a physician ignoring or avoiding the request for aided death is considered unethical. (Boyd, Boyd, Grande) They believe this on the grounds that the request may be a cry for help and to ignore it would go against a doctor’s Hippocratic Oath to help the patient. This falls back on Quill’s idea of compassion which creates a paradox within the Hippocratic Oath.
The doctor must help the patient to the best of their ability, but the doctor cannot harm the patient. The doctor in this situation must choose to make the decision of assisting the patient based on the circumstances of the patients request and its relevance as well as the doctors own position on the issue and the law. Some advocates of physician aided death no longer question why, but how it is to be done. (Boyd, Boyd, and Grande) Most agree that it cannot be a spontaneous decision. Instead they feel that it must be well thought out and questioned.
Some follow a set of requirements that they believe must be followed in order to come to a conclusion. First, the patient must have an incurable condition that causes severe suffering and the patient must understand the prognosis. Second, the physician must take measures to determine that the request is true and not an effect of insufficient pain control. The third requirement is that the patients request must be clear and repeated. Fourth, the physician must make sure that the request is not fueled by an unstable mind condition.
The fifth is that the assisted suicide must be done when there is a meaningful doctor and patient relationship. The doctor must trust the patient and the patient must trust the doctor. Sixth, to ensure that the request is true an unaffected; another well experienced physician must be consulted. Last, the steps must be documented. (Boyd, Boyd, and Grande) These guidelines take considerable measures to make sure the request is well thought over and not the effect of an unsound decision. This issue causes many problems in the medical field.
As doctors treat terminally ill patients, the human nature plays a roll where the doctor will feel sympathetic towards the patient. This is where the issue becomes truly ethical. The doctor must abide by the law to maintain their medical license and to avoid legal action. Oregon is the only state in the United States has not created legislature against physician aided death. (Boyd, Boyd, and Grande) The decision on the subject is determined by the patient with agreement of a doctor. In order for a doctor to agree, the physician must make a weighted decision of the pros and cons of his or her action.
The bioethical issue of physician aided death will continue. It contains a deep and detailed history that can be followed back many years in history. Both sides of the issue promote logical and valued arguments that are studied and thought over every day by doctors worldwide. Stipulations in place in forty-nine states disallow the issue, but advocates and opposition still debate and argue on how the issue effects, and will continue to effect human life, not only in our nation, but worldwide. ” Jack Kevorkian. ” 2011.
Biography.com 11 Dec 2011, 05:04 http://www. biography. com/people/jack-kevorkian-9364141 Boyd, Andrew D. , Anne C. Boyd, and Darby E. Grande, eds. “Physician-Assisted Suicide: For and Against. ” AMSA American Medical Student Association. University of Texas Southwestern at Dallas, n. d. Web. 11 Dec 2011. <http://www. amsa. org/AMSA/Libraries/Committee_Docs/PhysicianAssistedSuicide. sflb. ash&xgt;. Tyson, Peter. “The Hippocratic Oath Today. ” NOVA. NOVA, 27 Mar 2001. Web. 11 Dec 2011. <http://www. pbs. org/wgbh/nova/body/hippocratic-oath-today. html>.