The Suffering Should be Allowed to Die

An unbearable image: someone else deciding what is right for your own body, while you suffer against your will.

I’ll never forget hearing on the news about a couple in Oregon who lived together and died together after finding out they were both terminally ill. A sense of warmth was brought to the controversial topic of physician-assisted suicide surrounded by stigma. These patients had no regrets, no unfinished business, and no reason to wait and suffer any longer. Managing their deaths together was their sense of reassurance to their loved ones and themselves that they could always be together and now in a happier place. Why is this not a possibility in every state? In nine states alone an individual can make this decision for themselves under the Death with Dignity Law.

The relief of suffering caused by pain should be the individual’s decision as a patient should not have to endure a life-threatening illness under their physician’s dictation.

When pain in physical symptoms becomes intolerable, the patient needs to have control over their own body. No one truly knows someone’s pain level better than themself which is why physician-assisted suicide should be legal in every state in the United States. This option needs to be accessible for every terminally ill patient educated and examined on this topic as it comes down to the familiarity of oneself rather than the physician’s judgment. After all, how is it considered ethical to allow someone else control over your body and your choices?

Where some might argue in favor of natural death, no one knows an individual's pain better than themselves, ultimately leading to the need to voice opinions regarding a life or death case. A cancer patient with a life expectancy of a few months is going to undergo insufferable pain to where some would rather put a stop to life instead of spending their last moments in bed – and it is important to have that option. While talking about pain and symptom management, along with physician-assisted suicide comes the need to educate the sufferer on the procedures prior to processing. Before terminating life, distressing symptoms including pain and psychological distress need to be addressed along with the quality of life of the patient before making a decision they do not have enough knowledge on. You are the only one who feels your pain and there should be no one standing in the way of the terminally ill patient’s rights while they are properly educated on this decision.

Advanced cancer patients need this option as their time with loved ones is slowly destroying their relationships due to the restricted amounts of opportunities they are allowed to spend time with family. Patients practical attitudes toward this topic allow access to physician-assisted suicide when the physical pain becomes too intense. When determining if the subject is able to make these requests, psychological examinations are just as important as their physical health. Mental health does play a major role in making sure a patient will be satisfied with their decision to continue with physician-assisted suicide. This option should be readily available if the patient fit into this category; but are we giving our dogs a better death than ourselves? Dying like a dog means a peaceful death due to the means of letting go of the pain they are feeling. People can put their domestic animals down but no one gives humans this option to die a good death – instead we suffer with no right to choose.

Many people tend to look at this controversial topic in a wrongful light by comparing it to ordinary suicide. Researchers fear depression among the afflicted is a leading factor in them choosing their death; but competent care of the patient is swayed due to the difficulty to diagnose depression in the medically ill. Although uncontrolled pain contributes to depression, these patients receive higher amounts of support from their loved ones, making this decision harder for them regardless. But denying control over someone else's body is unethical in any circumstance; you would think a law like this came from a less humane part of the world. This is still a challenging decision to make, but the patient needs to make it for themselves as others will always have their viewpoints on the topic anyway. Through the controversy, a great majority of the public are advocates for the legalization of physician-assisted suicide. The studies centered around Michigan physicians and the public portray the same views – when choosing between the legalization or no law at all, fewer than one fifth prefer a complete ban on the practice and two-thirds of the Michigan public prefer legalization and less than one quarter prefer a ban. Understandably, strong religious groups appear to support the law the least but it is valuable to give people with uncertain religious values the opportunity to make these decisions. Regardless of someone's background, everyone needs equal and ethical rights to individually express their opinions.

But suicide as an overall concept is full of wrongful opinions centered around mental health and patients undergoing this pain makes their stage of mental health hard to be determined. Not everyone might agree that even though someone is suffering, they can choose to end their life – what about their family and friends? What if this terminally ill patient makes a miraculous recovery? This decision is irreversible, which is why only the states of Colorado, District of Columbia, Hawaii, Maine, New Jersey, Oregon, Vermont, and Washington mandate it by state law and it is mandated by court ruling in Montana and California – only nine states alone feel this can even be seen as a decision. Even with these states opinions, every state has different procedures to go about the process which only presents the example that most people do not feel confident in the decision to allow physician-assisted suicide just yet.

It is because of the couple who died from physician-assisted suicide together that sparked viewers attention on this issue of controlling someone else’s body. The way of relief caused by suffering should be the individual’s decision, where a patient should not have to undergo a life-threatening illness under their physician’s dictation. When physical pain becomes intolerable, the patient needs to grant their own freedom to have control over their body, as they are most familiar with themselves. Denying control over one’s body is unethical which can lead to a greater risk of depression and lack of freedom the patient needs to have in the end. Choosing to end insufferable pain should be the individual's decision as this is the time to let people have power of their own lives. After all, this is the land of the free, right?