Locked-in syndrome, is in fact a very controversial and frequently discussed topic. In which brings up the question if a person unable to function in speech or mobility, but conscious, should have the right to assisted suicide. In the following articles, assisted suicide will be discussed in which defends a person’s option to die. Such as: Physician assisted suicide: is it murder or compassion for a doctor to help kill a patient, Assisted suicide: A right or a wrong? , Assisted suicide: should it be legal? Therefore it will be easier to distinguish the pros and cons of this subject, and be able to clearly see the benefits of assisted suicide.
In the article, Physician assisted suicide: is it murder or compassion for a doctor to help kill a patient, defends PAS. One of the reasons people defend PAS is, the right for an individual to die. “Proponents say that individuals deserve the right to end their lives on their own terms, without pain and suffering” (Strohm 2013). This is only legal in Oregon, Washington and Montana. However, there are high standards that need to be met. For example, you need be to eighteen and up, a resident of the state, and able to make medical decisions. In other terms, physicians are not going around promoting assisted death, but using it as a last resort.
Would it not be compassionate to put a person out of their misery? To give them dignity, when most of it was taken away when they were diagnosed? Clare Andre and Manuel Velasquez wrote, Assisted Suicide: a right or a wrong? This article questions, the ethics of assisted suicide. Harold Donnelly, shot and killed his brother; a research scientist named Matthew Donnelly. He conducted research on X-rays; as a result he lost parts of his body and vision. “Now, skin cancer riddled his tortured body. He had lost his nose, his left hand, two fingers on his right hand, and part of his jaw.
He was left blind and was slowly deteriorating. The pain was unrelenting. Doctors estimated that he had a year to live. Lying in bed with teeth clenched from the excruciating pain, he pleaded to be put out of his misery” (Andre 2013). Matthew was in terrible pain as well as terminally ill. Therefore, Harold had the right intentions to do what he did, but since it is a gruesome and violent act to shoot and kill it is condemned as wrong. On the other hand all he wanted was it to be over; Harold wanting to bring mercy to Matthews life took actions into his own hands and killed him.
Medical technology has not only allowed us to save an exponential number of lives but has caused us to prolong death. This generated residents of California to speak out. “As medicine struggles to pull more and more people away from the edge of death, the plea that tortured, deteriorated lives be mercifully ended grows louder and more frequent. Californians are now being asked to support an initiative, entitled the Humane and Dignified Death Act, that would allow a physician to end the life of a terminally ill patient upon the request of the patient…” (Andre 2013).
Thus, ensuing a very intense and disputable subject of allowing sanctions like these into our society. However, whether we are able to pass this act it will be highly unavailable for people not living in California. Assisted Suicide should be legalized, because allowing somebody to choose how they want to go and when, is a privilege for them; giving them that option could be their grateful escape. In some terminally ill patients, all they have to look forward to is pain and suffering. Allowing them to relieve that pain is only humane. “Death is a compassionate way to relieve unbearable suffering” (Pretzer 2013).
This issue has been debated for thousands of years, up to modern times we are only concerned of what the others may think of this procedure. But in all aspects, assisted suicide can be the best option for some patients. However, “After Oregon passed its assisted-suicide law, 67 percent of the state’s physicians said they would refuse to participate in an assisted suicide — and even those physicians who have helped patients terminate their lives said they did so reluctantly, according to a survey conducted by the Oregon Health Division.,,” (Pretzer 2013).
These physicians had to put their values and morals first than their patients. Hence, the 67 percent and the reluctance of others, they promised to save lives, but to also abide to their patients whishes. Although some people may believe that physicians that become involved with helping terminate a person’s life will make the public lose confidence in medical professionals. This, in fact, is not true; first because this society has built an image for our medical professionals, in which the people trust them to do their best.
Also because of the Hippocratic Oath, “I swear to fulfill, to the best of my ability and judgment, this covenant: I will respect the hard-won scientific gains of those physicians in whose steps I walk, and gladly share such knowledge as is mine with those who are to follow. I will apply, for the benefit of the sick, all measures which are required, avoiding those twin traps of overtreatment and therapeutic nihilism. I will remember that there is art to medicine as well as science, and that warmth, sympathy, and understanding may outweigh the surgeon’s knife or the chemist’s drug..
” (Medical Net 2011) Named after the Greek doctor Hippocrates, this oath was taken in stride to provide good and honest service to the people. Assisting them with death is not only compassionate but liberating from the overwhelming pain the patients suffer. In conclusion, assisted suicide should be legalized; physicians are helping their patients by relieving the medical bill, the pain, and unavoidable feeling of hopelessness. These articles purpose is defend assisted suicide; for the greater purpose to verbalize the realization that in these modern times people should be open minded and mindful of the evolution of medicine.