Physician Assisted Suicide Analysis

Brooke Cox
Ms. Miller
AP Literature, Per 2
16 March 2016
Legalization of Physician Assisted Suicide As humans, we like to have options. We like to be in control. Physician-assisted suicide is meant to be an end-of-life option. It allows people with terminal illness to take control in how they die. In the United States physician assisted suicide is legal in only a small number of states (Oregon, Vermont, California and Washington). Oregon was the first state to pass the Death with Dignity Act in 1997, and since then other states have adopted the Act. Physician assisted suicide can easily be confused with euthanasia (which currently is illegal in all United States). The two are very different. Physician assisted suicide is “when a physician
As a society we associate doctors and health care professionals with the idea of healing; and having physicians be able to assist in the suicide of a patient might alter people’s opinion on doctors as a whole. In Jon Fullers article, “Physician-Assisted Suicide: An unnecessary Crisis”, he states, “granting [this] power to physicians would sully subconscious image[s] of the healer” (Fuller 10). Fuller believes that allowing physicians to take part in ending someones life, would change how health care professions are viewed. Fuller also writes that participating in the,“ taking of life crosses a threshold and threatens the trust in beneficence that is the root of the physician-patient relationship”(12). It takes a strong relationship between doctor and patient to come to the consensus that there are no other options for that patient. There has to be a great deal of trust for a patient to believe the physicians profession opinion on their course of treatment is accurate. For the patient having the their doctor help them end their life is an act of beneficence. The laws for physician assisted suicide are clear on the fact that the patient must be terminal with less than six months to live. Many people choose physician assisted suicide because they don’t want those last six months to be full of suffering and the worse months of their life. To the patients
The Hippocratic oath, “specifically notes that the physician will give no deadly medicine”(Fuller 11). Just like any other document with mandating guidelines, there is room for interpretations. If a physician is following the letter of the ‘law’, they would follow the literal interpretation of the words in the oath but not necessarily the intent of Hippocrates. Following the spirt of the ‘law’ in this case, could be not to cause a patient intentional harm or pain. The over arching idea of the Hippocratic oath is to “do no harm”. Josh Sanburn writes, “Since Hippocrates, doctors have taken their credo to do no harm. But what if a patient believes the treatment to keep them alive is more harmful than death?”(Sanburn 50) In the award winning documentary, “ How to Die in Oregon” Dr. Katherine Morris sheds light on a new outlook on “do not harm”. The documentary follows the last months of a terminal ill patient, Cody Curtis’s, life. Dr. Morris states, “ I think Cody taught me that first do no harm is going to be different for every patient. Harm, for her, would have meant taking away control and saying no, no, no, you’ve got to do this the way your body decides as opposed to the way you as a person decides”(Dir. Peter Richardson). Do no harm is different for every patient and stay alive though continual suffering can cause unnecessary harm to a