Ethics

The Greeks were known to have created and practiced the principles embedded in the Hippocratic Oath ever since it was instituted. The contents of this ancient text were still being utilized and highly respected by medical practitioners, most specifically by physicians.  According to the US Department of Labor, Physicians examine patients, obtain medical histories, and order, perform and interpret diagnostic tests (2009). Furthermore, the physicians are also responsible in giving advice to patients regarding health care. The Hippocratic Oath governs the ethical responsibilities of physicians. More particularly, physicians sworn that they must not do harm. Blackman and Bailey (1990) showed that the Oath mentioned that physicians swear the following

I will followtreatment, which, according to my ability and judgment and abstain from whatever is deleterious and mischievous. I will give no deadly medicine to anyone if asked, nor suggest and such counsel furthermore, I will not give a woman an instrument to produce abortion.

Centuries have passed and this ethical code still applies to physicians until this age. However, current circumstances proved to challenge the applicability of this doctrine. Specifically, when the Fourteenth Amendment had made it very clear that the laws must not violate the persons life, liberty and property without the due process of the law (Mount, 2010). This simple declaration illuminates the right of the person to decide for himself, to make his own choices about life and to protectdefend his property including his body. To this end, medical issues regarding physician assisted harm were being reflected on a new light.

This paper would limit its discussion to physician-assisted suicide. A definition of the term would initially be laid out. The discussion of the morality and legality of the physician assisted suicide would follow. The ability of the sick person to decide would be discussed in relation to its legal and moral basis. Lastly, there will be an evaluation of whether or not the PAS is a viable right.

Definition
The term physician assisted suicide already undermines the denotative meaning of the concept. It is killing oneself through the helpcounsel of a physician. To discuss this manner elaborately, each of the concepts could be studied apart from each other. The term physician was already mentioned above. Taking the meaning of the term into context, physicians act as enabler or someone who does not prevent the act from happening (Weir, 1997). The term assistance implies the need for help or inability to do something alone. In a PAS, the enabler could provide information and materials that are necessary to conduct suicide. Suicide is a condition when the actorperson would like to kill oneself. In medical conditions, the patient might request the physician for advice and assistance to conduct suicide (Weir, 1997). Physician assisted suicide is made when the physician agreed to the help the patient die. It is different from voluntary euthanasia, wherein someone ends the life of another person at their request (Park, 2006). It is also different from removing the dying persons life support. In such extreme scenarios, the physicians decide on their own or upon consultation with the immediate family.

Is assisted suicide right or wrong morally
The current society is composed of several cultures converging and affecting the personal beliefs of individuals. Since morality is a part of the human culture, it is inevitable for people to become exposed to a wide variety of ethical principles. During the formulation of the Hippocratic Oath, the most famous ethical principle was virtue ethics, which stressed the importance of character or virtue. A person is virtuous if he possesses virtues like courage and hope. A person who is about to commit, committing or committed suicide do not possess these traits.

Another way to determine the rightness or wrongness of an action is through deontological ethics, which emphasized that human action, must rely on duties and obligations. Humans must be treated as ends in themselves and not merely as means to achieve an end. Under this ethical framework, an action is right if it is applicable to every human being about to perform andor receive the action. In the case of suicide, the enabler might be feeling guilty because of the act. The enabler may not wish that the same thing would also happen to himself. In this case, the action of the enabler is deontologically wrong.

Lastly, there is also an ethical principle known as consequentialism. This is concerned with the consequences of human actions and not with the actions themselves. For example, the act of lying under the deontological and virtue ethics is considered as morally wrong. However, using the concepts in consequentialism, lying is not wrong if it is meant to protect someone. In assisting suicide, the assistants action would cause the death of another human being. This is in itself harmful and destructive. Since the consequences of the action are negative, then assisted suicide under this moral framework is wrong.

The morality of the action could also depend on the culture, for example, in Japanese culture suicide is regarded as a highly virtuous act. Assisted suicide is also highlighted through the act of Seppuku under the Samurai code, wherein an assistant would make sure that the samurai died through decapitation. In Christian countries, on the other hand, suicide is a taboo. People who had committed suicide were not given blessings of the church.

Under the letter of the law is it legal in the U.S. and if not why not
In 1997, Hilary Evans highlighted the fact that the Supreme Court of the United States had unanimously agreed that, physician assisted suicide is not a constitutional right. On the surface, it seems as if the Supreme Court was against PAS. Nevertheless, a closer look into the decision reveals that the Supreme Court did not prohibit the practice. They simply passed the burden of judgment to State Courts. This is the reason behind the permission of conducting PAS in Oregon under very tightly controlled conditions (Robinson, 2007). In North Carolina, Wyoming and Utah, PAS was not even mentioned in the laws. The rest of the states in the US are antagonistic about it.  An article from Wisse-To.com mentioned that in Oregon, PAS could be conducted if the physician had already exhausted all efforts that could be applied, and then the patient has the right to take his or her own life. In California, it was stated in the California Penal Code, Every person who deliberately aids, or advises, or encourages another to commit suicide, is guilty of felony (Internationaltaskforce.org). The different legal position of the PAS in different States portrays the dissimilarities in culture, mores and belief systems across the States.

Can a person that is ill, capable of deciding his or her own fate
Although people have the right over their own liberty, life and body, a valid decision could only be attained if it is achieved through rational means. This is the underlying concept on cases that are closed due to insanity plea. More often than not, people develop suicidal thoughts when they are depressed, or if they are suffering from extreme pain. The pain could be physical or psychological. Nonetheless, it does affect the ability of the person to decide rationally. In relation to this, Barbara A. Olevitch (2002). mentioned that

Not only is the mental health goal of independence inapplicable for the sick and elderly, also, the assumed method of therapy is impractical. Should a sick or dying person decide that in spite of the difficulty of achieving greater mental health at her stage of life, she, nevertheless, wants to try, the kind of therapy our culture imaginesmany sessions with an understanding therapist with the opportunity to grow over a long period of timewould not be feasible.

Considering the fact that most of the persons that would choose to conduct suicide are people who are already hopeless, their ability to decide would be largely impaired by their emotions. Nonetheless, the case of Robert Baxter, from Montana in 2009 had shown that there are cases when people with healthy mind decided to die due to excruciating pain and agony (Johnson, 2009). Their decision might indeed be affected by pain and emotions, but those that supported Baxter argued that people should have the right to die well.

Is it a right to choose whether or not you want to die and if so under what established guidelines
Medical practitioners are required by virtue of their oath and by medical authorities not to do harm to their patients. However, they are required by the same oath and authorities to respect the patients autonomy. Autonomy refers to the ability of the person to make informed consent and deciding on his own after rational deliberation. In the surface, it is not right for a person to choose whether to die. Life is too precious to lose. Different ethical principle would reveal that choosing death is not a moral thing or a rational thing to do. However, certain circumstances might push a person to decide that death is better than life. Although these circumstances are rare, they do exist. Thus, given strict guidelines a person could rightfully choose to die. The guideline must consider the probability of living a healthy life. For instance, terminally ill patients have a right to decide to die because they might suffer more if they continue to live. It is important to note that physicians also have the responsibility to minimize the amount of pain and the sufferings experienced by the patients as much as possible. Therefore, considering that, the decision could minimize the harm experienced by the patient and the choice was voluntarily made due to extreme sufferings that could not be prevented by any type of available medication, PAS is a rational persons choice.

Conclusion
A physician-assisted suicide entails that the patient decided to kill himherself through the influence of hisher physician. The moral basis of PAS would remain relative and subjective because ethical considerations are highly dependent on culture. Moreover, medical innovations, which are continuously changing also, have an impact on the life-expectations and living conditions of the patients. The patients, who considered conducting PAS today, might not have the same decision if he had the same circumstances 5-10 years henceforth. The laws regarding PAS could also change in the near future. The legality could become more definite or vaguer depending on the prevalence of PAS in the country. The legality would largely be determined by the persons ability to decide rationally.
Therefore, a person who is not terminally ill, not an elderly, andor has the perfect capacity to undergo other available treatments should not be permitted to conduct PAS. People have the right to protect hisher life. People also have the right to protect hisher liberty and property. Living is a right, dying is a choice.