The Pros And Cons Of Physician Assisted Suicide

Putting pets to sleep has become an accepted way to end the suffering of a pet, such as a dog or cat. Deciding to put a loved animal to sleep is a difficult decision to make, but is usually best for the animal when there is nothing that can be done to cure them. Since people keep their pets from suffering for a long period of time by choosing whether their pets live or die, they should be able to have that choice for themselves also. The debate on the right to die is focused on physician-assisted suicide. Through physician-assisted suicide, a person can receive lethal medication from a doctor or pharmacist to be self-administered for his or her own death. Even though physician-assisted suicide is considered immoral by many, terminally-ill patients

For example, people have different leniencies to pain and suffering (Benatar 2). Some people might think that a certain situation is bearable, and that life should be continued, while others in the same situation might think that life is not worth enduring until natural death. If a patient believes that they would be better off dead rather than enduring pain and suffering, they should not be forced to continue their life (Benatar 2). Also, even though some people do not believe for themselves that physician-assisted suicide is morally permissible, that does not mean that everyone else believes that also. As D. Benatar, who has a PhD in philosophy and has written books on the right to die topic, writes, “[i]t is extremely implausible … to think that continued life is always in a person’s interest” (Benatar 3). Doctors, under the current legislation, are not required to participate in physician-assisted suicide and participation in the acts can be prohibited by some health care administrations (Oregon Health Authority, FAQs). Without legislation that allows physician-assisted suicide, people do not truly have a “right to life” because they have no legal choice under any circumstances whether to continue life or not (Benatar 2-3). It is a “violation of [people’s] liberty … to force them to endure a life that they have reasonably judged to be unacceptable” (Benatar

The “slippery slope” argument says that if physician-assisted suicide is legalized, then other actions that are generally considered more immoral will eventually be legalized also. That claim has become true in some places, but there have been no negative results of the leniency in the legislation in those places. In the Netherlands, for example, their physician-assisted suicide legislation has become more lenient and permissive over time. It progressed from only terminally ill patients being qualified to people with a chronic illness, psychological suffering, and for patients who are not competent to be able to use the legislation. Even though actions that by some have been considered immoral have been legalized, the results of their legalization have not been negative. After physician-assisted suicide is more commonly legalized, people might realize that the evolution of leniency in legislation is not always a negative occurrence. The “slippery slope” counterclaim does not address the fact that the progression of leniency in the legislation is not always harmful, but is usually better for society (Benatar