Assisted suicide is when a physician assists in a terminally ill patient’s death. This issue was put into law in certain states in the U.S. with the “Death with Dignity Act” to allow terminally ill patients to die without suffering and pain. But unfortunately with assisted suicide being legal in certain states the intended benefit has many detrimental negatives that cause numerous debate. With further investigation on this subject, the negative effects of this law far outweigh the intended benefit. Having this act in place causes the quality of the healthcare system to decline, causes patients to inhibit the obligation to choose death, and diminish potential medical advancements.  The issue of assisted suicide is growing around the world and specifically in the United States. It is legal in Oregon, Washington, Montana, Vermont and California and is a growing issue in the younger generation as well.  Based on a survey conducted on fifty University of South Carolina students, 34 believed that assisted suicide should be legal in South Carolina whereas only 16 students believe it should remain illegal. This statistic illuminates that assisted suicide is a serious issue and will continue to give rise in the future through the younger generation. Although assisted suicide is intended to benefit society by allowing patients the right to choose how they die, the negative effects of this issue overcome the positive intentions and because of this, assisted suicide should not be legal in the United States.

Physician assisted suicide can create a completely different culture in the health care system. Physicians are meant to help and care for a patient but establishing this law causes health care providers to choose a more resourceful alternative, rather than saving the patient’s life. When focusing on the costs of different materials, assisted suicide pills cost much less to administer than keeping a patient alive for many years. In fact, administering this “aid in dying” pill costs about $75-$100, whereas keeping a patient alive and providing them with the correct professional care may cost significantly more. Though in some aspects this may seem like a beneficial way to save money, putting a value on a person’s life as a physician is not what the job should entail. Based on a study at the University of Georgetown, 206 physicians were given certain vignettes describing different scenarios of patients who wanted aid in dying. There were items included like whether or not the patient had insurance and what terminal disease they possessed as well as the reason they wanted to receive the assisted suicide pill. Based on the results, “This study has identified a significant, strong, linear association between the tendency of general internists to choose resource-conserving treatment options and their willingness to assist a terminally ill patient with suicide” (Sulmacy et al.) This linear correlation displays that putting this law into legislation causes the healthcare system to become about the cost and benefits of a person’s life. The willingness of a doctor or physician to aid in a patients dying is not just based on a patient’s personal condition but rather how resourceful that decision is. This ultimately could cause patients who are poorer or patients without insurance to have a disadvantage in the health care system and they would not receive proper care. 

Assisted suicide is put into place to provide freedom for individuals to choose how and when they can die. This is ironic though because it can instead limit freedom and sway someone into unwanted death. This happens because in many cases patients may feel an obligation to die to keep family and friends from unwanted stress and finances. Based on a study found,  “In 2010, over one-fourth (1/4) of patients who died after ingesting a lethal dose of medicine in Oregon and Washington did so because, at least in part, they did not want to be a “burden” on family members” (Harned.) With the “Death with Dignity” act in Oregon, this issue is embedded in this law. This is evident because the law states that a person must have two witnesses when requesting physician-assisted suicide and one of the witnesses must be a family member. (Harned.) This shows that the patient may never express how he/she feels about physician assisted dying but instead feel obligated to accept their fate. The patient’s family members and friends are not the only aspects that are pushing them towards assisted suicide, but they also experience this obligation when faced with insurance providers. Health care payers and insurance providers give an unfair ultimatum when faced with the expenses. They will offer to pay for assisted suicide pills but will not pay to keep the patient alive through treatment or palliative care (Harned.) This may render the patient helpless and gives them few options thus pressuring them into assisted death. No individual should feel an obligation to die and if assisted suicide transpires this issue will become even more prevalent in today’s society.

Assisted suicide is detrimental to advancing in medicine and can often keep doctors from further learning and many patients’ sickness and pain will not properly be handled. This is because many times doctors may use assisted suicide instead of trying to treat a symptom so if any patient decides they do not want to partake in physician assisted death then they are put at a disadvantage because the doctor does not know how to treat this terminal illness. This is evident because a Netherlands requesting doctor had a consultation with a patient who had a gastrointestinal obstruction. In the past this doctor would handle this situation with assisted suicide but this patient did not want to take this path (Complex.) The doctor in turn did not know how to treat this patient because he had no prior learning from other patients. The consulting doctor at this health facility addressed the matter by stating, “This is my biggest concern in providing euthanasia and setting a norm of euthanasia in medicine: that it will inhibit the development of our learning from patients, because we will solve everything with euthanasia” (Complex.) This is important because it displays that problems cannot be “solved” with killing a terminally ill patient and will be destructive in future procedures and treatments. Furthermore, when a patient is faced with a terminally ill disease they may take any course of action that could reverse their symptoms. They could be more willing to participate in treatments to test if they can improve symptoms and potentially cure the illness they possess. This advancement in medicine is completely impossible if a patient partakes in physician assisted suicide. The course of action physicians should use, instead of discussing assisted suicide, could be the potential help that patient could contribute to the medical field and further individuals who face the same illness. This would be much more beneficial to growing and advancing in the medical field than participating in physician assisted death. 

Reasons many people feel as though physician assisted death may be the only option they have left is because they don’t want to go through the tremendous amount of pain that coincides with their terminal disease or illness. Many also do not want to lose functionality as well as lose who they are as a person. Based on a review performed, sixteen qualitative studies and 94 surveys were conducted on individuals to display their views and attitudes on the issue to inform debate (Hendry et al.) Based on these surveys and vignettes there were numerous diverse responses to the issue of assisted suicide but the most common themes regarding this were dying free of pain, dying dignified, and not losing functionality. The reason these issues are understood and respected among humans and legislators putting this law into place is because they believe they are showing compassion by putting them out of their misery. The fact of the matter is humans are not dogs and the value of life is far greater than the “dignity” of dying. Though commonly thought of as a fixed rationale that patients want to die, the opposite is commonly true. Losing functionality and feeling as though dignity is lost can cause a patient to feel depressed and though life is worthless but that is when proper care and support are necessary to help this patient.  The decision to end life permanently due to terminal illness is just a path that seems easier than the one they are currently on but if a patient receives proper counseling, healthcare, and support then they can prosper through those times that do not seem worth living. Pain is another contributing factor patients desire physician assisted death but pain control in today’s society is the best it has ever been. According to WebMD, there are numerous options when it comes to pain relief. These include radiofrequency ablation (stops pain signals to the brain), pain shots, trigger point injections (works on tight muscle spots), opioids, and many other pain relief options as well (Rushlow.) The medical technology today can tremendously help a patient cope with end of life pain and doctors and physicians should discuss all of these options so assisted suicide is not the course of action. 

Physician assisted suicide is a growing epidemic in the United States. Based on evidence from numerous resources the negative effects of physician assisted death far outweigh the benefits.  There is no reason to partake in this end of life option because there are other far more beneficial ways to treat terminally ill patients. Overall, physician assisted death causes the healthcare system to crumble, causes patients to feel an obligation to choose death, and can diminish potential medical advancements. The “Death with Dignity” act needs to cease existence to prevent further problems in society and stop patients from taking their own lives. 
