Part 1: Introduction

In the later part of 1994, Oregon was the first state to legalize medical aid in dying, commonly referred to as physician-assisted suicide (PAS) or physician-assisted dying (PAD). According to the Death with Dignity website (2018), the implementation of the act was not until 1997 due to court challenges and injunctions (deathwithdignity.org). United States District Court Judge had placed a temporary restraining order which evolved to the injunction. By February of 1997, the Ninth Circuit Court orders the lift of the injunction and the Death with Dignity Act active. The topic faded out of public view for many years.

Then in 2014, Brittany Maynard was diagnosed with terminal brain cancer and opened her private life to the public. She allowed the public to get an inside view of someone who is choosing to use the Death with Dignity Act. After receiving the devastating news of having six months or less to live, she researched her options. The only thing she knew was that she did not want to live with a debilitating treatment that would not save her life. So, she and her family moved to Oregon to have the ability to use the Death with Dignity Act. Brittany was able to get the prescription filled and ended her life on November 01, 2014.

Physician-assisted dying is one of the most controversial legal and ethical issues still today. When it comes to physician-assisted dying, there is no black and white answer. Ethical issues tend to develop when we must decide what is right or wrong.

Thames (2018) express to maintain them just as everyone has the right to determine for themselves how to live their lives, and they should have the right to determine for themselves the timing and manner of their death (Section 7.2). Supporters of assisted dying take a deontological approach with the notion that it is a fundamental right that we must respect that someone has the right to determine the timing and manner of their death. Opponents of physician-assisted dying use the utilitarian approach that the economic disadvantages and other marginalized and vulnerable populations who tend to have less control over their lives and choices are at risk of the practice if legalized. These arguments will help find the answer if physician-assisted dying is right or wrong.

Part 2: Ethical Argument

People have different views on how, when, where, and why we do and live the way that we do. The individuals who argue in favor of physician-assisted dying believe death is personal and should be respected. Competent, terminally ill patients can legally refuse any prolonging life treatment. Patients who are not dependent on life support but are suffering, refusal of treatment would not die quickly. To hasten death for these patients, we should allow physician-assisted dying. There are physical, existential, social, and psychological burdens like loss of independence, loss of functional capabilities, loss of self, patients feel jeopardizing their dignity. Authors Claire Andre and Manuel Velasquez (2015) explain that we must relieve the suffering of our fellow human beings and to respect their dignity.

Part 3: Explanation and Defense

Deontologist focuses on the rightness or wrongness of actions themselves, as opposed to the consequences. Deontologist feels that protecting one’s dignity the best way possible is to legalize physician-assisted suicide. Thames (2018) defines deontology as the idea that we have unconditional or absolute obligations or duties (section 4.1).

Physicians must listen and honor their patients' requests for treatment.

Part 4: Objection and Response

Opponents of physician-assisted dying fear if legalized, the underprivileged can be easily manipulated to take their own life even thou they want to keep on living. The underprivileged and uneducated patients are easily manipulated by the high cost of prolonging care or being denied by the insurance companies to choose physician-assisted dying. Physician-assisted dying legislation is geared towards those who are white, well- educated, and financially stable patients who are accustomed to making their own life decisions. The marginalized and vulnerable choices for treatment are reduced and can cause a burden for their families. Palliative care addresses symptoms beyond physical pain in ways that go beyond medication — the article Killing the Pain Not the Patient: Palliative Care vs. Assisted Suicide (2005) states that addressing psychological, emotional, and spiritual problems is essential to palliative care (http://www.usccb.org/about/pro-life-activities/respect-life-program/killing-the- pain.cfm). Physician-assisted dying gives into these problems and prevents the medical field from advancing.

Part 5: Conclusion

Physician-assisted dying is a subject that is always going to revolve around ethics and morals. Deontology views physician-assisted dying as a guaranteed way to retain one’s dignity and control over one’s life. Utilitarian’s view that the underprivileged will be coerced into physician-assisted dying and undermines palliative care. The is no way to ethically say that physician-assisted dying is morally right or morally wrong. Each patient and case are different from the next, and regarding physician-assisted dying, the right outcome will be determined on a case by case bases.