The moral debate surrounding physician-assisted suicide

The+moral+debate+surrounding+physician-assisted+suicide

Glory Yount, Staff Writer
October 24, 2016

Euthanasia, also known as physician-assisted suicide, has been a topic of controversy widely debated around the US, although it is only legal is the states of WS, OR, CA and VT. It is administered by a qualified doctor, using a lethal dose of pain medication.

Arguments surrounding euthanasia insist that it should be legalized under certain conditions, such as the patient whom is requesting it having less than six months to live, determined by two different doctors. The opposing argument declares that there are options other than suicide and an unnatural death is not the solution. Although the issue is technically centered on whether or not somebody should be allowed to die on their own terms, there seems to be a far deeper underlying debate. The issue at hand is really about morality.

“

Euthanasia is not directed at those who are suicidal or dealing with depression, it is a solution for those struggling with physical pain that is unbearable.

— Glory Yount

It is meant to end the suffering of those who live with terminal illnesses that make the miniscule amount of time they have left to live unlivable. Spending the last six months of life sitting in a hospital bed with the lingering promise of being won over by the illness is not living. Staying alive, thanks to medications and surgeries that only push the expiration date back a few weeks or months, is not living. Succumbing to the illness taking over the individual’s body and leaving their family behind because they just could not beat it, is probably the least dignified way to die.

The reason this is mostly a moral debate is because people consider life as the most valuable possession a human can own and having it taken away is against human rights. Consider this:  Murdering somebody is wrong because the person’s life is being robbed of them and the argument against abortion claims that abortion is wrong because a child’s life is being taken away against their will. The debate against the execution of prisoners claims that, no matter what, taking away somebody’s life in payment of their crimes is against their rights and cannot be an effective form of punishment. The reason that physician-assisted suicide contrasts so much from other life-or-death debates is because the patient chooses to die, rather than not having a choice in the matter. Is it morally wrong if death is the only way to end the physical pain of an illness that will take their life in a few months anyway? Is letting them die on their own terms merciful?

Letting somebody die with dignity, surrounded by their family members provides closure for their loved ones and is ultimately a more compassionate and humane way to bring agonizing pain to an end.