Physician assisted suicide need to be legalized

This term paper aims at supporting that physician-assisted suicide should be legalized and made available to those who need it to terminate their lives. The paper will also explain the counter-arguments against physician-assisted suicide as well as present scientific research and fallacies used to support PAS. Physician-assisted suicide should be legalized because patients have a right to die; it reduces unbearable suffering by facilitating peaceful death and grants those who want it autonomy over their life. However, PAS violates the universal moral code of natural death, contradicts the professional ethics of a physician and degrades human dignity. Arguments supporting Physician-assisted suicide Physician-Assisted suicide should be legalized because it is a patient’s ethical right to die. By killing to reduce suffering, PAS strengthens human dignity based on the assumption that people should be happy always.

Physician-assisted suicide grants people autonomy to shape their death. According to Kamm (2015), by choosing PAS, people express their independence. In such case, PAS is perceived as fundamental freedom to define the framework and conditions on the termination of life. Thus, physician-assisted suicide should be legalized because it protects and promotes personal autonomy. Physician-assisted suicide should not be legalized because it is against the professional ethics of physicians. As postulated by McCullough (2015), physicians who assist patients to terminate their life violate their oath and professional duty save lives and prevent harm to others. Historically, physicians are perceived as healers and possess the ability to avoid or alleviate pain by prescribing patients the most effective medications and offer to counsel for psychological well-being.

Thus, causing patients’ death makes physicians unprofessional and murderers. Physician-assisted suicide should not be legalized to safeguard the professional ethics of physicians and the morality of medicine. Also, the general public in this case the US citizens forms the base of interest in the issue since some of them asks the doctor to assist them end lives of their suffering loved ones. The legislation of PAS is thus bound to benefit them more specifically. Researchers also form part of the issue for they seek public opinion about the claim and table their findings. Supportive Evidence The legalization of physician-assisted suicide conflicts with my perspective and belief in life. I believe life is a sacred gift endowed to every human being. Such assumptions prioritize choice over the right time of one’s death.

On the other hand, God, the giver of life, has control over life and thus autonomy should not override the supreme power. The rhetoric idea of the right to die and freedom held by opponents of PAS depicts that life is sacred and only God can take it. A fallacy held in support of PAS includes the belief that it is better to die through injections than dying at gunpoint. Killing through PAS reduces the pain in patients and has reduced impact on families. However, the government should consider the moral and ethical effects of PAS on human dignity and work ethics of physicians. However, much thought should base on the pain and agony of patients. The sanctity of human life needs protection.