Right to Die, Term Paper Example

The “right to die” is defined as one’s entitlement to undergo voluntary euthanasia or to commit suicide. Lately this has become a pressing issue because many people who are terminally ill and are in physical pain belief they should be given the legal right to have control over their own lives by ending it. Furthermore, committing suicide is technically illegal; this brings into question whether the government should have the ability to regulate our ability to end our own lives or whether since they are our own we should have this control. It is interesting to recognize that we support the “right to die” for non-human creatures. When our pets get sick, we typically take them to the vet who will decide if they’re too sick to continue to live. While we are able to measure the pain of an animal and use this information to decide whether or not it is suffering and euthanize them accordingly, we are unable to do so for humans who are more clearly able to indicate the fact that their pain is unbearable. Ultimately, we should be granted the “right to die” because only we know when we are experiencing a level of pain that is only fixable by death. The fact that we don’t have the ability to decide when we are able to die is unconstitutional because it is providing the assumption that the government has some kind of ownership over our lives that we do not.

The origins of the area of law that define “right to die” and similar concepts are written mainly by medical practitioners due to their knowledge in the field. These physicians have claimed that they are more fully aware of the situations that terminally ill patients are experiencing and therefore should be granted the legal grounds to assist the government and lawyers how to define how these people should be treated in terms of the law (West, 2011). The influence of the health practitioners is evident in the law concerning psychiatry and the role of forensic pathologists as the advisory on criminal trials, which emphasizes how medical knowledge is apparently intertwined into basic law. Although it is helpful to have medical expertise on the topic, our focus has shifted too much to enabling the medical professionals to have control over the right to life. Rather than a medical question, “right to die” is more of a question of ethics. People will answer this question differently based on their religious views, political views, and general ethics. For example, many people who are religious and believe in god claim that the “right to die” should not be permitted because only god has the ability to take and give life. On the other hand, people who live in Democratic societies believe that they should be given the “right to die” because it is their own lives and they should be able to do with it what they please.

To understand how the medical profession influences our “right to die”, it is necessary to fully understand their relationship with the law. As stated above, medical practitioners have roles in defining law regarding psychiatry and the role of forensic pathologists as the advisory on criminal trials. As such, physicians are able to ultimately determine whether a man on trial committed a crime or not on the basis of insanity. Even if a man commits a terrible crime such as homicide, they are able to receive a temporary reprieve from the court to receive medical care and recover. If a man was deemed to be sane and committed this kind of crime, he would likely either be sent for jail to life or put to death depending on what state he inhabits. Furthermore, physicians define the role of forensic pathologists in court. While it is useful to have a professional interpret evidence in courtrooms, very few people in the audience or jury actually understand enough science to know whether or not what is said should be trusted. Ultimately, the lack of medical knowledge by the public forces us to rely on medical professionals for their interpretation of the law because we believe they know more than us. However, despite their intelligence, it is important for us to remember that doctors are people as well and can hold biased opinions. If doctors don’t support “right to die” it is possible that this is due to their own convictions rather than their medical knowledge.

In addition to analyzing medical data presented as evidence in the court room, society relies on medical expertise to devise laws as well as arbitrate against the existing cases. In the process of presenting medical and scientific data in the court, rulings often become case law. As such, everyday practices by physicians in the court rooms are continuing to define the country’s manner of interpreting law. In fact, a series of laws stemmed from a physician’s decision that people who are insane cannot truly be considered guilty in the court of law. “Not guilty by reason of insanity” and “diminished capacity” are now pleas that can be used by a defendant in order to lessen the impact of what they did in terms of their punishment. “Not guilty by reason of insanity” is essentially the same as claiming no guilt while “diminished capacity” is claiming that the defendant was aware that the crime was committed but should not be punished as harshly because insanity was still a factor. As such, physician involvement has shaped the courts; according to the McNaughton rule, (Cornell, n.d.) people who are insane are sometimes incapable of knowing right from wrong. When these people claim innocence due to insanity, their insanity typically needs to be confirmed by physicians and they will be rehabilitated in a mental institution. The Durham rule was also defined by physicians as the inability to control an impulse; these criminals have weakened punishments as a consequence for their insanity as well. Ultimately, it is clear that medical professionals are able to influence the law in many ways. In the particular example of insanity claims, it appears that these court decisions were made by them based on ethical beliefs rather than what had been previously stated in the law. Although insanity was the reason the crimes were committed, they were committed nonetheless; why then, should these criminals not receive similar sentences to those who do not plea insanity? Just as “right to die” is a controversial topic now, the insanity plea has been in the past and many people who had family members fall victim to a criminal who was deemed innocent on this basis continue to fail to agree with this principle.

Currently, the right to die stems from the medical expertise advice on the need to terminate life of terminally ill. Medical professionals believe they have the ultimate ability to determine when and when not this is necessary. However, it is important that we understand the power of decision making should be transferred to the individual whose life is in question. Furthermore, if the patient is unable to make his or her own decision regarding life and there is no record of the decision that the patient would have made, this responsibility should fall to the closest living relatives of the person. Allowing a physician to make this decision based on the definition of life and religion is ethically wrong; rather they should allow themselves to be put in the situation of their patient and recognize that if they were in that situation they would want to be allowed the option to choose their fate.

It is also unfortunate that in medical cases in which the physician would like to help their patients by ending their lives, they are restricted by law from doing so. There are some cases in which patients go through unnecessary amounts of physical pain that will only lead to death, and some doctors recognize that it is best for their patient to die and ease their pain. If the patient provides consent to the doctor for euthanasia, the doctor should be permitted to act upon this request. In a sense, we could consider this process a medical treatment because the main goal of the doctor-patient relationship is to alleviate symptoms and help the patient feel better. If the patient wants to die to be able to feel better, it should be allowed in extreme cases. A prime example of a doctor wanting to help a patient on this basis can be seen in the case of R V. Cox (Cases in History, n.d.)

In R V. Cox, Dr. Cox agreed to provide euthanasia to his patient Mrs. Boyes. The patient was 70 years old and there are reports that she was in so much pain that she would “scream like a dog” if anyone were to touch her. Dr. Cox argued that he tried his best to make her feel better with conventional medicine, but this wasn’t working. Towards the end of her life, Mrs. Boyes repeatedly asked her doctor to kill her. Dr. Cox was acting in the most human possible in the situation by agreeing to his patient’s request; allowing her to suffer is against the Hippocratic Oath that doctors must take stating they should “do no harm”. In this situation, Dr. Cox viewed doing nothing as doing harm since he was the only one who had a chance to ease her suffering. As a consequence, he injected Mrs. Boyes with a solution of potassium chloride which allowed her to enter her death peacefully and more relaxed than she was in her current state. Even though Dr. Cox was eventually given a suspended sentence, he was treated like a criminal by the world for the remainder of his career. It is unfortunate that the laws that were formed by physicians in court can’t be counteracted by a reasonable point of view from another physician. What is ultimately important in healthcare is that the doctors do everything in their power to help their patients; in this situation, this involved questions of the “right to die”. It is unfortunate that the courts and the general population did not agree with Dr. Cox’s action. Anyone with a sense of morality would have likely done the same thing in his situation.

Patients that are terminally ill often do not have a choice to terminate their life because doing so in the absence of law would amount to suicide. Despite this, the suicide law isn’t specifically defined in many regions of the United States. While many states have their own version of the law such as case law resulting from Wackwitz v. Roy in Virginia (VA, 1992), others state that suicide is technically illegal due to common law. Despite the vagueness of this law in the literature, many courts have ruled that suicide and assisted suicide should be illegal. However, one can argue that the courts have made erroneous decisions on this basis. Case law is supposed to be an interpretation of and addition to written law. If there is no written law in place, the courts cannot accurately make these sorts of important decisions for their populace. From an ethical standpoint, allowing the “right to die” law would relieve the patient from undue suffering. The pain that a patient undergo after being diagnosed with terminal illness is unjustified if the patient feels that he does not wish to live anymore. Since there is no specific federal or state doctrine addressing this, there is no reason that doctors should be held criminals in court if they uphold the wishes of their patients. After all, the medical profession is federally regulated and the doctors are expected to be upheld to the highest ethical standards. In very few situations then would a doctor do something that would deliberately harm their patients. It therefore is essential for the law and medical profession to work together to redefine the meaning of “harm”; while the federal law defines harm as death, doctor’s define it as pain. Since doctor’s have advanced understanding of life and death compared to most citizens, it is their opinions on the matter that should be followed.

People who are against the “right to die” argue that it is biblically unethical. This view seems to refute attempts geared towards terminating one’s life. While it is essential to respect people’s view of religion, it is important to emphasize to these groups that the “right to die” is an optional right. A patient won’t be forced to die if they are in too much pain and the doctor will be required to put a lot of thought into this decision. It must have been requested from the patient for a long period of time and they must actually be terminally ill and in pain. These kinds of regulations will prevent accidental deaths or assisted suicide for people that are not in the right state of mind when they request this. Therefore, it is important that while we respect the beliefs and values of people who believe god is the only one who can give life and take it away, it is important for them to respect the fact that some people may not agree with this and have the right to choose whether to live or die. In addition, it’s important to emphasize that some people, even though religious may choose this option if they were put into this situation. It’s a very difficult concept to understand, but the only people this law is really relevant to is the people in the situation and their doctor’s. Outside the scope of these two groups, we allow our strangely disconnected and biased opinions to influence the lives of those who really would benefit from the “right to die”. It is important to put ourselves in their shoes before we consider whether we should support or shoot down this policy.

People also disagree with the “right to die” because it seemingly contradicts many societal values we hold dear to us. For example, many of us are afraid of dying and believe our ultimate goal should be to stay healthy and find ways to live longer. While this is true for many people, we must consider that the position of a terminally ill patient is very different. Although there are small odds a person may recover from this state, it usually does not happen. Furthermore, while it is beneficial to live a long life for many people, such a feat is not worthwhile if the quality of that life is severely compromised. Not being able to take care of oneself, walk, speak, or live a moment without pain are all terribly difficult to live with and many people feel that once they are useless or require constant care, it is more beneficial to themselves and those around them to end their lives.

Despite the clear need for the “right to life” law, it exposes society to various challenges. Firstly, it legitimates the incapacity of the state to continue to assume what was once primary state function. To introduce the law, policy makers must evaluate the content of the law good or bad before accepting this change to the society (West, 2011). Since many people have different political views, it will be very difficult for politicians to agree on this case. Furthermore, some people have a growing fear that creation of right to die is likely to influence the rate at which people would be willing to terminate their lives. As mentioned above, the only way to reasonably introduce this policy would be to present it with specific laws and regulations, just as other medical policies are. The duration of pain, mental status, and quality of life of the patient are all factors that need to be taken into consideration before making the decision as to whether or not the “right to die” could be acted upon by the physician.

After reviewing the general public’s opinions about this law, it was found that scholarly articles illustrate varied views about the creation and the existence of such a law in society.

The cited merits and demerits of the law, largely, border on the drafting of the law; specific regulations are needed. Furthermore, the law should have some measures which limit the ability of the society to settle that one should terminate his life. For a person to think of settling on death as the last choice, the society as well as the relatives of the terminally ill should identify the need to recommend the proposal to terminate life. Sometimes a person may prematurely call for his death without necessarily facing terminal conditions that expose the individual to life long suffering. Ultimately, when considering the legality of the “right to die”, once must consider that the acceptance of the law into the society stems from the view that medical experts are able to advise on issues relating to terminal illnesses and that regulating the administration of this law is instrumental in protecting life.

References

Cases in history. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.euthanasia.cc/cases.html

Cornell. (n.d.). The insanity defense and diminished capacity. Retrieved from http://www.law.cornell.edu/background/insane/insanity.html

Wackwitz v. Roy. (1992). 418 S.E.2d 861.

West, R. (2011). Normative Jurisprudence: An Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.