Opinion: Life, Liberty, and Assisted Death

This article is an op-ed published as part of The Voice’s “Controversial Issue” 2023. Please see the Editor’s Note on this year’s edition.

Physician-Assisted Suicide has quickly become one of the most controversial issues in the United States. In order to cover this issue with as much depth as possible, Ben and Elizabeth decided to team up. Ben produced much of the contextual research, while Elizabeth provided an opinion on how to interpret this research. 

Although this topic has been around for hundreds of years, it has resurfaced recently as many politicians have been voicing their opinions through their campaigns in an effort to gain support. Many political activists have renamed the topic to “Physician-Assisted Death” because of the inaccurate assumptions made with the term “Assisted Suicide.” Physician-Assisted death legalizes the administration of medication intended to hasten death. Laws differ from state to state but generally communicate that the patient must have a prognosis of six months or less, and must be “mentally capable” of deciding to end their life. Physician-Assisted Death is permitted in ten states as well as the District of Columbia. It is legal through a case-by-case court approval process in the states of Montana and California, and in all other states including The District of Columbia, it is legal through a state-level mandate.

Why is this topic on the hot seat recently? Many politicians question whether or not the U.S. Constitution grants any patient the right to decide how their life will end. On June 26, 1997, Congress unanimously denied any patient the right of physician-assisted death claiming the Constitution does not grant someone this right. 

In recent years, the statewide legislature has allowed patients this option, but there are still forty states that do not grant patients this right under any circumstance. The ten states that do allow for Physician-Assisted Death, are the states most commonly known for their progressive, left-leaning philosophies. 

While the political debate has dominated the discussion on Physician-Assisted Death, the more complex, and more important, debate exists in the moral sphere. 

It is important to note that Physician-Assisted Death is not the same thing as euthanasia. Euthanasia is a procedure where a doctor administers medicine ending a patient’s life, while physician-assisted death allows for the patients to take their own medicine. Euthanasia is also a very controversial topic, with questions surrounding human rights, and how much choice patients should be granted. While opposers of Physician-Assisted Death may defend their position in similar ways that people who are pro-life (anti-abortion) may, there is nuance in the way in which Physician-Assisted Death occurs. Physician-Assisted Death and euthanasia differ in the process in which the life ending medication is administered. Euthanasia allows for a medical professional to administer the medication, as opposed to physician-assisted death when a patient takes the medication. 

There are many arguments as to why Physician-Assisted Death should not be allowed, but most arguments share the same claim that death should not be premeditated, but should happen naturally. People opposed to physician-assisted suicide also argue end of life care has improved in recent years and terminally ill patients should receive care and take advantage of the health care system in the United States. Opposed parties also claim that the matter is not so much about ending physical pain but a matter of, “the desire to have control to end one’s life.” Seems like a rather silly opposing moral argument when that is indeed what physician-assisted death allows for.

According to Elizabeth, if a person is terminally ill, it should be their own decision, without any political influence. There is a moral debate due to the fact some people feel as if physician-assisted death will reduce the number of people that are willing to enter different clinical trials, if they have the option to terminate their lives. In all honesty, that could not be further from the truth. She is very optimistic there are plenty of people who are hoping for a miracle and will continue to take advantage of any medical resources available if it provides them with a chance for a longer life. On the flip side, there are definitely patients who have come to peace with death. This type of patient has decided they have lived a long and beautiful life, and do not want to suffer when it comes to the end of their life. I do not believe there should be any political influence when it comes to the debate if someone needs to continue to suffer. There are many factors that will play into someone’s decision, and I do not believe any political debate should be brought into their already very challenging decision. It should be a moral debate somebody has with themselves and trusted people around them, not a decision made by politicians who will never truly understand what it feels like to make such a challenging decision. 

There is also a debate that allowing this will increase suicide rates. This is incorrect because this does not allow for medical suicide, it allows individuals to have total control over their body and their decisions. This is also not an option for every patient, it is only an option for patients who have essentially explored every other option possible. People who used increased suicide rates as an opposition are clearly just uneducated on the topic. 

Physician-Assisted Death is a very controversial topic, and probably always will be.  Students in this community should not only discuss this topic but should embrace the opportunities they have to learn its complexities in spaces such as Senior Ethics. Politics aside, this option allows for ill patients and families to make the best decision possible. If our country grants everybody Life and Liberty, shouldn’t every patient be liberated to make their own decision about their life?