The Morality of Physician-Assisted Suicide: A Multifaceted Approach
The question of physician-assisted suicide (PAS) is a complex ethical and moral dilemma. In this paper, we will explore the case of a 70-year-old terminally ill man who feels like a financial burden on his family and wishes to explore PAS. We will analyze this situation through various lenses: Biblical principles, non-religious ethics, and contrasting viewpoints like utilitarianism. Ultimately, this paper will argue that while compassion necessitates supporting the patient, PAS contradicts the sanctity of life and undermines the potential for growth even in terminal illness.
A Biblical Perspective:
The Bible provides a strong foundation for the sanctity of human life. The Decalogue, the Ten Commandments, explicitly states “Thou shalt not kill” (Exodus 20:13). This commandment encompasses the protection of human life, including one’s own. The concept of “perfect duties” in Christian ethics refers to absolute moral obligations, and protecting innocent life is considered such a duty. PAS, in this view, violates this perfect duty.
While some might argue that the commandment against killing refers to taking the innocent life of another, the principle of the sanctity of life extends to oneself. The Bible emphasizes God as the giver and sustainer of life (Psalm 136:25). Therefore, taking one’s own life, even with assistance, is seen as an act against God’s will.
The Bible also offers examples of individuals facing immense suffering, like Job. However, Job exemplifies perseverance and faith even in the face of hardship (Job 1:1-22). This narrative suggests that even in terminal illness, there is a value in life and the potential for spiritual growth and strengthening one’s faith.
Non-Religious Considerations:
Beyond religious beliefs, there are compelling arguments against PAS from a purely ethical standpoint. The right to life is considered a fundamental human right. PAS, by facilitating suicide, might be seen as an infringement on this right, especially for those who are vulnerable or pressured by external factors.
Furthermore, the concept of “slippery slope” comes into play. Legalizing PAS could lead to its misuse and pressure on vulnerable populations like the elderly or those with disabilities to consider suicide as a viable option.
The focus should be on palliative care, ensuring the patient receives comfort and pain management during their final stages. Additionally, addressing the emotional and psychological distress associated with terminal illness through therapy and support systems becomes crucial.
Utilitarianism vs. Sanctity of Life:
Utilitarianism, an ethical framework that emphasizes maximizing overall well-being, might find PAS justifiable in certain situations. If the patient’s suffering is unbearable, and their death would relieve them and their family of financial burdens, a utilitarian might argue for PAS as the option that creates the most good and minimizes suffering.
However, this approach focuses solely on consequences, neglecting the inherent value of life itself. Moreover, the potential for unforeseen positive experiences, like reconciliation with loved ones or unexpected medical advancements, cannot be discounted.
Furthermore, utilitarianism becomes problematic when it considers the potential for abuse. The decision to seek PAS might be influenced by external pressures, coercion, or a distorted sense of burden on loved ones, rather than a genuinely autonomous choice.
Conclusion:
The decision surrounding a terminally ill individual’s desire for PAS is complex and emotionally charged. While compassion and support for the patient are paramount, PAS contradicts the sanctity of life that is central to many religious and ethical frameworks. The focus should be on providing comfort, managing pain, and supporting the patient through the final stages of life. This approach acknowledges the inherent value of life and allows for the possibility of growth, even in the face of terminal illness.
