The decision to end one’s life is a deeply personal and often painful one, but when faced with the relentless agony of a terminal illness, some may wish for the option of physician-assisted death (PAD). PAD involves a physician providing a lethal dose of medication, which the patient self-administers to peacefully end their suffering. For those enduring the final stages of a terminal illness, proponents argue that PAD offers not only a compassionate way to avoid prolonged pain but also prevents the horror of botched suicide attempts that can worsen their suffering.
Yet, the debate surrounding PAD remains contentious. Should individuals be given the choice to die with dignity, or does this practice undermine the sanctity of life? Let’s dive into why or why not physician-assisted death deserves a place in our healthcare system, and what side Hindu Americans should take.
Proponents argue that physician-assisted death offers a way to allow terminally ill individuals to end their suffering. Matthew Donnelly is one individual that was denied this relief after finding out about his terminal skin cancer. Lying in bed with his teeth clenched after losing his jaw, nose, lips, eyes, left hand, and two fingers on his right hand, he pleaded to be put out of his misery from the excruciating pain, but PAD was not legal in Donnelly’s state. Donnelly’s story ended at the hands of his brother, who mercifully shot him, unable to bear his cries anymore. Those who are in the late stages of terminal illness may have no recovery or relief from their suffering, and in such cases, the option of PAD provides them with dignity in the face of illness.
However, some argue that assisted suicide devalues the respect for life, but people afflicted with terminal conditions only face lives filled with deterioration. At the point where a patient begs for a merciful end, it becomes inhumane to refuse their wishes. Without this mercy, some may even go as far as to take matters into their own hands, putting themselves in more danger and inflicting additional distress on their families.
Opponents of physician-assisted death argue that it undermines the sanctity of life, asserting that every life, no matter how frail or suffering, holds intrinsic value and should be preserved until its natural end. They worry that legalizing PAD could lead to a slippery slope, where vulnerable individuals, such as those with disabilities or mental health issues, may feel pressured to choose death over life due to societal expectations. Critics also point out the potential for abuse in the healthcare system, where patients could be coerced into making life-ending decisions by family members, insurance companies, or even healthcare providers.
The possibility of misdiagnosis or the rapid progression of an illness is another concern, as a terminal diagnosis is not always certain, and some patients may experience unexpected recoveries or improvements. They believe that the focus should be on improving end-of-life care and providing emotional, psychological, and spiritual support rather than offering a medically sanctioned way to end a life. In this view, PAD risks reducing the shared sense of commitment to preserving life, which could lead to a loss of empathy and moral responsibility.
On the other hand, denied access to PAD could also incentivize patients to attempt to take their own life, piling additional stress onto an already difficult situation. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), factors that greatly increase suicide risk include serious illnesses. An analysis published by the Office for National Statistics revealed that patients with serious medical conditions are two times more likely to attempt suicide than the general population. Without access to PAD, these could quickly become botched suicide attempts, not only adversely affecting the patient, but their family as well. Botched attempts are unpredictable and may result in further complications such as brain damage, paralysis, and prolonged pain, leaving family members with guilt, confusion, or anger. In fact, one survey conducted in the Netherlands found that friends and family of terminally ill patients who requested PAD had less traumatic grief symptoms than friends and family of those who died from other varying causes. Therefore, allowing patients an option for assisted medical death would not only prevent dangerous suicide attempts but also ease symptoms of grief in their families.
But what about financially? A major aspect to consider is the potential to save money, resources, and time on patients who choose PAD. Usually, when a patient is terminally ill, medical care expenses rise due to the increased need for costly medications, intensive treatments, and hospital visits. Medical costs rise exponentially as a patient nears the end of their lifetime, with around 33% of all costs in the last year of a patient’s life being spent in the final month. Substantial savings could be achieved by choosing PAD up to 6 months before their natural death because the patient is minimizing the number of end-of-life treatments needed.
However, there is a concern that PAD could become more economically attractive for governments or healthcare systems, especially in countries with publicly funded healthcare, as it could reduce the high costs associated with long-term end of life care. This could potentially lead to a situation where cost considerations start to outweigh the individual’s autonomy and dignity in making end of life decisions.
The debate over physician-assisted death is not just about a patient’s right to die with dignity, but also the ethical and societal implications of granting that choice. On one hand, the option of PAD can alleviate the unendurable pain and suffering of terminally ill individuals, offering them control over their final days. Yet, opponents raise valid concerns about the risks of coercion, misdiagnosis, and the devaluation of life. Is it truly compassionate to deny someone the choice to end their suffering, or does that choice open the door to a slippery slope that erodes the value of life itself? The answer is not simple, and as more regions consider legalizing PAD, these questions will continue to arise.
But one thing is clear: the decision to end one’s life should be approached with utmost care and respect for the individual’s rights. In the end, deciding whether to legalize physician-assisted death forces us to face tough questions about choice, pushing us to find a balance that honors both personal autonomy and the value of life.
Leave a Reply