Euthanasia is a controversial process which may commonly be referred to as physician-assisted suicide or in lighter terms, "mercy killing." It is a process in which an individual ends his or her own life in order to prevent pain and suffering with the assistance of physicians. Those advocating euthanasia contest that an individual should posses the right to end his or her own life in a painless and dignified manner. On the other hand, those who oppose euthanasia claim that it is a doctor's role in society to heal and abide by the Hippocratic Oath they are required to take upon graduating medical school.
Those who oppose physician-assisted suicide claim that there exists a paradox in palliative care, which is that "one can die healed." These challengers of euthanasia claim that "physicians have a duty to uphold the sacred healing space—not destroy it..." (Bodreau, Somerville). Those who are in opposition to physician-assisted suicide do, in fact, respect the patients' requests to pass in a dignified manner that does not involve suffering, but they also believe that the art of healing should remain at the core of the medicinal profession. This is not only because it is considered ethically wrong, but as previously stated, at the beginning of every doctor's career, they must take the Hippocratic Oath, which claims that a physician's role in society is to save lives, not end them.
Those who oppose euthanasia claim that within the realm of palliative care, physicians are held responsible for providing hope and inspiration to those who are nearing the end of their lives, and should refuse to assist their patients' wishes to end their lives and do anything and everything they can to make the patient comfortable when nearing the end of their lives.
Those who do not support euthanasia also propose the idea of a slippery slope that would supposedly exist if euthanasia were to be legally permitted. They claim that physician-assisted suicide would inevitably lead to "expended access to assisted suicide interventions and abuses..."
In J. Donald Bodreau and Margaret Somerville's essay, the authors explain that in countries in which euthanasia is permitted, there exists a spiking number of life-ending acts without explicit requests. The BBC also argues that upon legalization of voluntary euthanasia, "it would not be long before involuntary euthanasia would start to happen..." By saying this, they believe that if something that was initially intended to be "harmless," were to be legalized, then there would become a trend in abuse of the system.
Ross Douthat writes in The New York Times that terminally ill patients should not be placed in a separate moral category than people that are perfectly healthy, and then rhetorically asks, "If a man losing a battle with Parkinson's disease can claim the relief of physician-assisted suicide, then why not a devastated widower or a parent who has lost their only child?"
Overall, even though physician-assisted suicide may be a more comfortable and easy route for some, it should not be something that is used any time someone just simply doesn't wish to live anymore. It is, in fact, a physician's role to save lives, not end them. Because of this, doctors should remain consistent with the Oath they take upon entering their medical careers.
SOURCES:
Boudreau, J. Donald, and Margaret A. Somerville. "Physician-Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia: Can You Even Imagine Teaching Medical Students How to End Their Patients' Lives?" The Permanente Journal.
Douthat, Ross. "A More Perfect Death." The New York Times. 06 Sept. 2009.
