Physician-assisted suicide and active voluntary euthanasia should be legal in the United States.

There has been a fierce debate among many stakeholders that include government and non-governmental agencies, religious leaders, healthcare professionals, researchers, activists and scholars on whether physician-assisted suicide and active voluntary euthanasia should get legalized or not. Physician-assisted suicide refers to the act where a licensed professional or doctor prescribes lethal drugs to a patient at their voluntary, informed and competent request with the aim of causing death. Voluntary Active Euthanasia refers to the action of a doctor or licensed professional to administer lethal medicine to a patient at their voluntary, informed as well as competent request with the aim of causing death. Various scholars and stakeholders argue that physician-assisted suicide and active voluntary euthanasia should get legalized in the United States. In this paper, I will argue that physician-assisted suicide should be illegal in the United States. I will also show that it’s wrong and unlawful for a licensed professional in the health care sector to undertake active voluntary euthanasia.

The proponents of these practices argue that their practices are necessary as they result in a benefit to the patient (Kamm, 1997). They claim that suffering is evil, and these actions eliminate the pain caused by suffering. They maintain that the patients suffering from terminal illnesses have a right to choose not to suffer by taking their lives. They argue that the principle of autonomy in healthcare gets adhered to, as the patient who is not well-trained in ending life procedures voluntarily requests for the services of a trained physician to assist them in ending their lives.

However, this argument fails greatly due to several reasons. First, the principle of autonomy has limitation. The disparity of knowledge as well as clinical judgment compromises the principle of autonomy. All health care professionals have a greater knowledge base that their patients and also have a responsibility to do good to their patients. The suffering caused by diseases such as terminal illness limits a patient’s right to autonomy. Suffering may be a severe and multifaceted challenge, however, is not insurmountable. It is treatable, and the use of certain powerful analgesics and pain management techniques can significantly relieve pain. Hence, these proponents are wrong by suggesting death as the only measure to deal with pain.

The nations that tolerate or legalize assisted suicide or active voluntary euthanasia do so under some set guidelines. For instance, “German where voluntary euthanasia gets prohibited and assisted suicide does not get considered as a violation of the law provided that the patient is tatherrschaftsfahig” (Battin, 2006). That is the patient is capable of exercising control over his or her actions and also acting out of freely responsible choice. In Netherlands, active euthanasia remains prohibited by statutory law and also gets protected by a series of lower and Supreme Court decisions. It broadly gets considered as legal as long as the healthcare professional meets several guidelines. The guidelines are; that the patient’s request be voluntary, that the patient is undergoing intolerable suffering, that the patient gets well informed, that all acceptable alternatives for relieving pain have got attempted and that the physician consults another healthcare professional.

The practice by the Netherlands fails significantly since its availability creates a disincentive for providing good terminal care. The practice also erodes into practicing less-than-voluntary euthanasia on patients whose problems are not irremediable and usually by moderate degrees develop into terminating the lives of individuals who are elderly, handicapped, chronically ill or mentally retarded. In the case of German, Physicians should understand that tehy6 involvement in assisted suicide results into more harm in the practice of medicine. The patients who are dying will have a fear that they are dying due to assisted suicide is allowed. This practice gets seen to distort the healing relationship between doctors and their patients. It is the responsibility of the physician to do what they can ethically so as to alleviate suffering and should in no circumstance involve themselves knowingly in the death of a patient.

As an objection, it may get argued that it is necessary to cause permissible death as a side effect if it leads to relieving pain, as sometimes it is a lesser evil and pain relief is a greater good. This argument allows a healthcare physician to treat pain in whatever manner so as to result in a patient’s greater good.

This objection is wrong since killing a person is not of any good to a patient. There are other alternatives for relieving pain other than death. Furthermore, it does not necessary require a healthcare professional to cause death. Numerous effective methodologies are available especially on the internet that does not necessarily involve a physician.

The paper states in what numerous ways physician-assisted suicide and active voluntary euthanasia are of more harm than good to a patient. The paper also argues why health care professionals should in not by any means get involved in any practices that aim at causing death as it destroys the patient and doctor relationship as well as is against the principles of medicine. Hence, physician-assisted suicide and active voluntary euthanasia should not get legalized in the United States.

The selected psychosocial development theory is Chickering’s theory of identity development that attempts to explain the process of identity development. The major focus of the theory was examining the identity development process for college students but has been applied in other areas too. The theory has seven tasks on psychological development that includes competence, managing emotions, interdependence, mature interpersonal relationships, identity, developing purpose, and developing integrity (Chickering, 1969). The discussion focuses on Jillian’s development journey and the issues she faced in defining herself, her path in life, and relationship with others.

Using theory to describe Jillian’s journey

Jillian suffered disappointment from rejection, but she was determined to move forward. She had several experiences in life that gave her the ability and confidence in herself to get through any aspect of life. According to Chickering’s theory, students ought to develop competence in manual, interpersonal, and intellectual aspects which are crucial in developing their identity (Chickering, 1969). Jillian required forming relationships with other students and her lecturers which she did as well as the ability to analyze and synthesize issues in her life. Another aspect of the theory is managing emotions. Jillian could not manage her emotions considering that she was not comfortable with the preferred college by her parents that made her vulnerable to peer influence. She could not manage to do the things other students did like partying as she felt uncomfortable with it. Autonomy towards interdependence is a key aspect of the theory and highlights the need to operate alone and take responsibility for one’s life. Jillian was not independent in her early stages in life, but after moving to New York, she experienced a lot that made her independent and realizes her potential. She also developed networks and realized her purpose in life that helped her to move on despite the disappointments.

Jillian’s decisions and choices

One significant Jillian’s decision was leaving California College and moving to New York for work. I consider the decision as crucial to her life since it enabled her to identify her identity as well learn how to be independent. According to Chickering’s theory, the establishment of identity is a process of discovering how experiences will satisfy oneself in a safe manner and also how one is perceived by others (Chickering, 1969). It results to contentment in one’s self and how others regard an individual. Jillian’s life would not have changed for the better had she not acted the way she did. The aspect of discovering one’s identity requires that individuals learn to be independent and make personal decisions on the course of their life.

The role of the environment in her developmental process
Jillian’s environment was helpful to her developmental process. Her family was crucial in shaping her culture, attitudes, and values that helped her to choose the right friends in college. The life in college introduced her to a lifestyle she was not fond of that went against her values. If she did not attend college, I think that her experiences would be rather similar in some aspects since her father could not allow her to stay at home and at the same time do against his will. As such, she could have searched for a job and stay away from home. Her encounters in the workplace would be crucial in shaping her life, but not as she experienced in New York. Jillian could change some aspects of her life if she had not enrolled in college, but it is apparent that she could not remain the same.

Helpful programs to Jillian in her first year
Hatch and Skipper (2014) provides important educational practices designed to support first-year students in their struggle with identity development that would be helpful to Jillian. She would learn from the experiences of others to ease her transition to College. She would also learn on college adjustment and the strategies of meeting college expectations.