End-Life Physician-assisted Suicide Assignment Discussion Paper

End-Life Physician-assisted Suicide Assignment Discussion Paper

End-Life Physician-assisted Suicide Assignment Discussion Paper

            Debates on physician-assisted suicide are one of the most common debates in the patient care cycles. While the proposing thinkers feel that assisted suicide is an ethical practice, others feel it is unethical as it does not value the meaning of life. These arguments have made the end-of-life debate a delicate and serious subject among policymakers (Ahlzen, 2020). End-of-life care is a plan for care given to people with a terminal illness who are nearing death. The option would arise when a person decides to end his life to alleviate the agony and anguish, they experience because of terminal illnesses that limits their chances to live again. Again, other patients may decide to die a painless death by accepting assisted suicide as an ethical nursing practice (Calati et al., 2021). Despite the increased option of physician-assisted suicide, issues have been arising on the negative and positive impact of the practice in a healthcare setting. The purpose of this assignment is to discuss end-of-life issues by looking at the arguments in favor and those that oppose the technique.

ORDER A PLAGIARISM-FREE PAPER HERE ON;End-Life Physician-assisted Suicide Assignment Discussion Paper

Act Utilitarianism Theory

            This theory has basic principles that aid in understanding the end-of-life issue. The theory proposed by Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill explains that any action is good if it benefits someone and immoral if it harms (Savulescu et al., 2020). The choice of a patient to die comes after undertaking adequate medical analysis confirming that living causes more harm and pain than dying. The theory supports a happy life where one can see life’s meaning. The decision to end life comes to save a patient from pain and other financial implication that comes with them spending more days in hospitals.

            The theory ascertains that an action is right (or wrong) to the extent that it increases (or decreases) the total happiness of the affected parties. The utility is the tendency of something to produce happiness and satisfy needs. Terminal illness lowers the total happiness of people as patients are not to live normal life (Calati et al., 2021). The ending life option is wrong if it causes more harm than pain to pain. However, it would be termed as right if it reduces pain in a person. Most cases of end-of-life options are accepted because they relieve patients from pain caused by their terminal illness.

            The theory contends that when choosing an option, the right choice is known when the perceived benefits outweigh the harm. The decision accepted needs to weigh the effect of an action benefit vs. harm and calculate its overall impact on any human being (Savulescu et al., 2020). In the case of assisted suicide, the choice would not be made over a night. However, the decision comes after examination and diagnosis have confirmed that a patient suffers more when alive than dead.

            This theory focuses on happiness and its benefits to individuals. The decision made from this theory aligns with a person’s general happiness. It is comprehensive and considers all sorts of elements before making any decision (Savulescu et al., 2020). However, this theory ignores the sense of duty and obligation. It uses a single scale to measure different consequences and ignores the unjust distribution of good impacts.

Policy Opinions

            In my opinion, I believe physician-assisted suicide is not the appropriate approach to terminating one’s life. The option does not only have an impact on how healthcare professionals value life but also would increase the chances of people dying without trying other interventions that could treat terminal illness. The value of life has been a major reason compelling healthcare professional to work hard toward saving lives (Ahlzen, 2020). The ratification of the assisted suicide policy would make the work of healthcare professionals meaningless. This policy would as well turn physicians into angels of death as they would use the policy to terminate life deliberately. We must not abandon current technology and research choices in health care despite everyone having the freedom to make their own decisions.

Arguments

            The assisted suicide option relieves the patient from suffering. In all the cases where assisted suicide has been adopted, the process is initiated by the patient or the family members. Many cases have also been rising on why a doctor could not allow assisted suicide while the patient wanted the act. Such cases deny the patient their autonomy to decide on their healthcare options (Calati et al., 2021). The ethical principles guiding healthcare ascertain that healthcare professionals must allow patient autonomy and decide on the treatment they want to be given at the clinic.

When a patient has decided to opt for assisted suicide, nurses tend to have limited power in changing such decisions. However, nurses advocate for the choice of such patients because of the burden of pain and suffering they face. When a patient has decided to undergo assisted suicide, healthcare professionals would critically think about the decision and decide on the best option to meet the patient’s needs (Dugdale et al., 2019). Therefore, healthcare professionals should grant patients assisted suicide whenever they ask for it, as this relieves their pain.

            On the other hand, assisted suicide would have a negative impact on healthcare. For instance, it would be giving too much power to doctors, and wrong analysis can lead to wrongful death. This can also spike suicide cases in society after listing some high-profile cases. This is a slippery slope case; some fear a” loss of dignity” by giving power to doctors (Dugdale et al., 2019). While doctors have been treated as life savers, assisted suicide would reduce the worth of doctors in society. The religious beliefs across many religious institutions are against assisted suicide because it does not value life. Society takes life as supreme given by God, and its God to take life. Any person does not have the power to decide who to live and who to die. Therefore, Christians are against assisted suicide as it gives the human being the power to control who lives and dies.

            The Hippocratic Oath is also against assisted suicide because it believes in life’s sacredness. The oath states, “Neither will I administer a poison to anybody when asked to do so, nor will I suggest such a course.” This implies that human beings should not suggest any course meant to terminate life (Ahlzen, 2020). The oath also supports a section of physicians who have been ready to improve interventions aim to save lives than selecting an option of death for terminally ill patients.

Conclusion

After reading many articles and doing research on the pro and cons, I believe that anyone in pain should have the right to want to be able to decide to end their life. While more has been said about the positive impact of assisted suicide on the patient and the family, It is imperative to examine the effect of the choice on the entire healthcare system. I think it is inhumane to take that away from someone who cannot experience the same pain they are experiencing. No law or physician should be in charge of one’s suffering.

References

Ahlzen, R. (2020). Suffering, authenticity, and physician assisted suicide. Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy, 23(3), 353-359. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11019-019-09929-z

Calati, R., Olie, E., Dassa, D., Gramaglia, C., Guillaume, S., Madeddu, F., & Courtet, P. (2021). Euthanasia and assisted suicide in psychiatric patients: A systematic review of the literature. Journal of Psychiatric Research, 135, 153-173. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpsychires.2020.12.006

Dugdale, L. S., Lerner, B. H., & Callahan, D. (2019). Pros and Cons of Physician Aid in Dying. The Yale journal of biology and medicine, 92(4), 747–750. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31866790

Savulescu, J., Persson, I., & Wilkinson, D. (2020). Utilitarianism and the pandemic. Bioethics, 34(6), 620–632. https://doi.org/10.1111/bioe.12771

Please follow the paper outing in the attachment .
Discuss the technical aspects of your topic in general terms.
Discuss the public policy debates relevant to the topic you choose. This section should cover arguments that favor and oppose the use of the techniques or products.
Express your personal opinion regarding the topic’s importance and the validity of the pro and con arguments.
Rubric
1-Expectations
Paper demonstrates that the author fully understands and has applied course concepts. Paper includes several high quality, thought- provoking ideas. Topic is focused narrowly enough for the scope of the assignment
2. Expectations
Connections among subtopics and the thesis/topic are clear without being repetitive or redundant. Concluding remarks demonstrate analysis and synthesis of ideas. Writing and integration of source materials is eloquent and skillful.
3-Expectations
Three or more appropriate sources are completely and eloquently integrated throughout the paper. At least one source is from credible, scholarly, peer-reviewed materials. Detailed, meaningful quotations and paraphrases aptly and accurately support the topic.
4-Expectations