Helped Dying: Control over the Human Body
“Dogs do not have many advantages over people, but one of them is extremely important: euthanasia is not forbidden by law in their case; animals have the right to a merciful death.” (Milan Kundera)
Critically analyse to what extent Helped dying laws for humans are capable of providing control over one’s own boundaries.
Critically analyze to what extent Helped dying laws for humans are capable of providing control over one’s boundaries.
Introduction
The average life expectancy has increased over the last two centuries attributed to the substantial decline in mortality which in the past has been associated with poor nutrition and infectious diseases. However, the rise in population has been accompanied by a wide range of challenges including the rise of chronic illnesses such as cancers and coronary artery diseases. These diseases require years of treatment, patients being constantly under medication and painful treatment procedures and years of pain unlike in the past. Worst of all, conditions such as the different types of cancers are incurable at certain stages and the only option for doctors is to help patients manage pain until their demise (Sulmasy, Finlay, Fitzgerald, Foley, Payne, & Siegler, 2018). Although the healthcare sector has been characterized by technological changes and medical advancements aiming to prevent or control such conditions, debates continue to arise regarding patients at the later and incurable stages of these terminal conditions. There is also increased recognition and emphasis that a patient has to be at the center of any healthcare decision and that the outcomes of these decisions have to be tailored towards their views and wants (Mishara & Weisstub, 2016). For instance, would a patient in the last stages of cancer desire to go on living in pain while they know that they are at an incurable stage or desire to have an Helped death. Some jurisdictions have introduced laws legalizing Helped deaths in some form including Oregon, the Netherlands, and some states in the US among many others. In many states, however, the issue of Helped death continues to spark legislative debates centered around the issue of ethics and morals in preserving and valuing human life raising questions of how these would increase people’s control over their bodies and lives.
Different states have enacted different laws to regulate the activities of withholding or withdrawing treatment from patients to provide Helped death. These laws are created to formally guide in a binding manner the desires and wishes of competent adults regarding the te type of treatment to receive or not to receive once they lose competence (Myers, 2016). Despite the existence of these laws, there is no piece of legislation that has accurately characterized these practices of Helped death such as euthanasia. Many states have strictly emphasized that their laws are against any form of Helped death including euthanasia. However, most of these laws are focused on active and or passive euthanasia. For instance, when answering the question regarding euthanasia, the Western Australian Department of Health states that “an Advanced Health Directive cannot require or authorize a doctor or other health professional to take active steps to unnaturally end life.” These statements demonstrate that while the department does not allow Helped death, the practice of euthanasia may fall within passive practices in this. In the Us, the 1997 Supreme Court ruling stated that Helped suicide is a concept that I do not understand (Yao, 2016). Regarding the question of whether Helped suicide is constitutional, the court ruled that Helped suicide is not a crime throughout the land but a matter of the different rights of the states. This ruling further demonstrated the dilemma and confusion regarding this issue.
Helped Death Laws and Control of One’s Boundaries
Critics of dying laws argue that by legalizing Helped deaths, human beings will not have control over their bodies but rather there will be less emphasis on human life. This will go against the morals and ethics that society and human life are built on. They also argue that introducing such laws goes against the code of ethics that medical practice has been founded on for more than 2000 years (Sulmasy, Finlay, Fitzgerald, Foley, Payne, & Siegler, 2018). However, supporters argue that these laws are necessary to provide competent adults with increased control over their lives and bodies. According to previous findings, the desire for Helped suicide is influenced by the need one wants to maintain power on own life. Many people opting for Helped suicide desire to have control over their dying circumstances.
Every human being desires to lead a healthy and happy life until their dying day. However, life does not always turn out the way people expect or desire (Stefan, 2016). Accidents happen every day and some lead to victims sustaining lifelong injuries, paralysis, and sometimes complete incompetence. Some individuals have to rely on others all their lives to get even the simplest tasks such as eating done by others (Myers, 2016). Their lives are altered completely forced to rely on the help of those around them to carry out tasks that they previously did easily. These changes of circumstances often force some human beings to become hopeless in life and even with the right therapy and counseling sessions, they are unable to recover with their desire mainly being to end their lives. The rise of chronic illnesses that have no cure, especially during the later stages renders most patients incompetent during the later stages making them feel helpless and undeserving to continue with life. The desire to have control over their lives’ decisions is taken away. Therefore, the introduction of Helped dying laws will be instrumental in providing these patients with the increased power of their bodies and lives, a power they once had in life. With this control, they get to make decisions regarding how they should end their lives rather than succumbing to the hopelessness and pain influenced by their conditions.
It is a known fact that most terminal illnesses such as cancer render one helpless, especially during their last stages. The patient is in constant pain and unable to do any daily activities (Myers, 2016). Many patients often become bedridden because of pain and have to rely on o those close to them for everything including cleaning up and relieving themselves. Many adults do not want to find themselves in a situation that renders them helpless forcing them to rely on others’ help. Worst of all, in most instances, the medical practitioner will communicate that the patient has a certain period to live, and therefore should be prepared for the transition. Therefore, in these circumstances, the patient will likely choose to die in a certain way asserting that they have still power over their lives and bodies and not their condition. Their desire for control is influenced by various reasons including their worries and anxiety about future pain or their fear of losing autonomy. Simply put, the Helped suicide method provides them with increased control over their lives and bodies during a period when the health conditions want to snatch away all their controls.
There is a huge difference between what legal practitioners and voters want and the professional ethics that guide medical practices. According to many researchers, it is up to a medical practitioner to determine what can be considered to be a legitimate practice and what is not. Some physicians follow their personal beliefs while others act from a professional point of view (Stefan, 2016). Many terminally ill patients understand what their future look like and would like to end their lives through medical terms that are not violent. Often, it is out of respect for themselves and for those around them as they do not want to be a constant burden. They are therefore able to end their lives in a less chaotic, less violent, and respectful way, unlike normal suicide cases. However, this is not an easy procedure as the dosage and timing of drugs administration are critical. Failed attempts of these procedures could cause severe trauma to the patient; trauma greater than death itself even to the caregivers (Mishara & Weisstub, 2016). In such instances, the patient might beg the practitioners to complete this suicide process. In such instances, the physician may be convinced that helping a patient end his life prevents greater harm than the cause. Some physicians believe that stopping the physical and mental anguish of a patient at a patient’s request is not a violation of the code of ethics in medicine.
Ethical Choices of a Physician
A dilemma arises for the physicians if the law decides to legalize Helped suicide. They could opt to refuse to help the patients end their lives and drive these patients ti to seek help from others or wait in anguish until their demise. However, by doing this they fail to look into and meet the needs and wants of the patients as their practice demands (Snyder & L., 2017). The other option is to help patients with Helped suicide as their law stipulates which, on the other hand, will lead to the violation of the code of ethics that the practice was founded on more than 2000 years ago.
There are different ways a physician can provide Helped death without violating their code of ethics or compromising their personal beliefs. First, they must conduct a very accurate prognosis. Such a task will require knowledge and bravery, as they have to establish without bias or emotions why one patient needs Helped suicide and why another doesn’t. The lack of a clear and accurate prognosis cab influence patients to make wrong choices near the end of their lives; choices that cannot be reversed (Barbuzzi, 2014). The physicians have to explore all treatment alternatives and palliative care options and discuss possible consequences with their patients and ones. They should also explain the possible consequences of not accepting any form of care or treatment. It is common for physicians to refer patients to other physicians for second opinions, and also to spiritual guiders and psychiatrists for Assessment and counseling. The psychiatrist conducts a full examination of the patient’s mental well-being to determine whether they are in the right state of mind while making. Report from this mental Assessment has to be presented to the law and determine whether the given by the patient is sufficient to lead to Helped suicide. The spiritual and religious personnel such as clergies provide counseling and therapy services to the patient in an attempt to help the patients reconsider their end-of-life decisions.
While the patient undergoes the above procedures, physicians are often advised to maintain a close relationship with the patient regardless of their final choice, whether to commit suicide or not. At the request of the patient or patient’s surrogate, this physician can withdraw or withhold treatment such as the CPR or ventilator treatment among many other procedures; the physician will not be violating the professional code of ethics (Barbuzzi, 2014). In cases where the patient appears to be mentally impaired, the guardian or close family members have the right to use the power of the attorney and refuse Helped suicide. In such cases, the individual is mentally incompetent to make such a crucial decision. Therefore, they are unfit to be granted control over their life boundaries. The physician uses the psychiatrist’s reports to confirm whether the patient is in the right state of mind to make such a critical decision.
Conclusion
Euthanasia and other suicide-Helped practices have for years remained an ethical and professional dilemma in medicine. Most laws created in different states have laws that provide accurate decisions on the practice. However, they also have not clearly stated whether the practice is fully banned. There is a need for more articulate laws that provide competent adults with full control over their lives and bodies as they should have the right to determine what happens in their lives. This way they have the choice of getting Helped suicide when their bodies become incompetent and are faced with major health challenges such as those influenced by chronic conditions.
References
Barbuzzi, M. (2014). Who Owns the Right to Die? An Argument about the Legal Status of Euthanasia and Helped Suicide in Canada. Penn Bioethics Journal, 1(1).
Mishara, B. L., & Weisstub, D. N. (2016). The legal status of suicide: A global review. International journal of law and psychiatry, 44, 54-74.
Myers, R. S. (2016). The constitutionality of laws banning physician-Helped suicide. BYU Journal of Public Law, 31, 395.
Snyder, S., & L., M. P. (2017). Ethics, Professionalism and Human Rights Committee of the American College of Physicians*. (2017). Ethics and the legalization of physician-Helped suicide: an American College of Physicians position paper. Annals of Internal Medicine, 167(8), 567-578.
Stefan, S. (2016). Rational suicide, irrational laws: Examining current approaches to suicide in policy and law. . Oxford University Press.
Sulmasy, D., Finlay, I., Fitzgerald, F., Foley, K., Payne, R., & Siegler, M. (2018). Physician-Helped suicide: why neutrality by organized medicine is neither neutral nor appropriate. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 33(8), 1394-1399.
Yao, T. (2016). Can We Limit a Right to Physician-Helped Suicide? The National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly, 16(3), 385-392.
