Name
Professor
Course
Date
Assisted Suicide
Assisted suicide is a contentious issue that raises heated debates among human rights activists, individual scholars, and health workers. Medical practitioners use assisted suicide as an appropriate method to terminate life for patients with a terminal illness. The approach plays a crucial role in alleviating pain among such patients. The use of assisted suicide to manage chronic psychological challenges continues to gain popularity in modern times. However, this approach remains less effective because various methods lead to sustainable solutions to long-lasting cerebral ailments. Although assisted suicide helps to terminate chronic pain and to suffer among patients with terminal illnesses, it does not assist people living with trauma because it denies them a chance to live, violates fundamental human rights, and leads to depression among the family members.
Assisted suicide is not a suitable method to manage trauma. Berardelli et al. define trauma as one’s response to distressing and overwhelming events (1). Trauma causes patients to lose the potential to manage their feelings effectively. Besides, most people living with this condition lose control of their emotions. Evaluation of various case studies reveals that most people who develop trauma tend to develop suicidal ideation (Berardelli et al. 2). From a practical perspective, this statement implies that people who experience trauma consider death the most appropriate method to escape their suffering. However, adequate support can help such individuals to overcome most of the challenges that lead to chronic stress. Psychoeducational approaches enable people with suicidal ideations to change their attitude and interact with other individuals with similar challenges (Berardelli et al. 4). This information suggests that there exist alternative methods that people can use to assist patients who live with trauma. The alternate approaches can lead to sustainable solutions to chronic psychological problems. Therefore, assisted suicide is not the most appropriate method that physicians can use to control trauma.
Assisted suicide is not an appropriate method for managing traumatic conditions because it denies patients the right to life. Findings from a recent study revealed that only 41% of psychiatrists perform assisted suicide for patients living with trauma (Kim et al. 364). In this case, only a minority of psychiatrists agree to administer euthanasia to patients. These professionals evaluate alternative methods to help control the traumatic conditions without taking away the patient’s life. Approximately 50% of traumatic patients receive services from physicians new to them or mobile euthanasia clinics (Kim et al. 364). From a practical perspective, this statement implies that most health professionals do not support the idea of administering euthanasia to patients. Instead, patients must look for alternative health professionals who lack adequate psychiatric knowledge to terminate their lives. Other research findings reveal that 11% of assisted suicide did not have any independent psychiatric input, while 24% of cases involved disagreements among consultants (Kim et al. 365). This statement implies that qualified psychiatrists perceive assisted suicide as an activity that denies people an opportunity to live. In this case, psychiatrists tend to consider alternative methods to deal with the traumatic condition. Therefore, assisted suicide is not an appropriate method for dealing with the trauma because it leads to unethical life termination.
Assisted suicide violates fundamental human rights as stipulated in the constitution. According to Chan and Somerville, everyone has a right to life, liberty, and security (143). This statement implies that health professionals have a fundamental mandate of saving lives. In this case, psychiatrists and doctors have an appointment to find possible ways to save a patient’s life. The right to life and safety restricts the decisions that one can make regarding life (Chan and Somerville 147). From a practical perspective, an individual lacks the authority to decide when to end life. The constitutional laws give health professionals the mandate of the terminal conditions that warrant termination of one’s life. The majority of doctors perceive trauma as a controllable condition that does not require the ending of one’s (Kim et al. 365). In this case, deciding to use assisted suicide for traumatic patients does not provide them with any form of assistance. Instead, such decisions violate fundamental human rights and fail to lead to desirable outcomes. Therefore, assisted suicide for traumatic patients is an illegal activity that denies people a chance to live.
Assisted suicide for traumatic patients leads to adverse psychological conditions for the family members. Administering assisted death requires the administering health practitioner to involve the patient and family members (Kim et al. 390). This statement implies that the traumatic individual and immediate relatives should receive adequate psychiatric counseling before administering the assisted death. This approach helps to reduce the possible adverse outcomes that family members may experience. Findings from a recent study revealed that most clinics that administer euthanasia do not involve psychiatrists when interrogating traumatic patients (Kim et al. 391). Such trends leave family members vulnerable towards developing depression for the loss of their loved ones. In some extreme cases, some relatives may develop trauma due to a lack of adequate support. According to Kim et al., some physicians administer euthanasia without following the Psychiatric Association Guidelines (Kim et al. 391). Such conduct creates more mental problems in society and leads to unnecessary medical procedures like terminating people living without terminal conditions. From a practical perspective, administering assisted suicide violates the physician’s mandate to provide care to the patient and close family members. Therefore, assisted suicide for traumatic patients increases the rate of psychological problems in society.
In summary, traumatic patients do not require assisted suicide. The findings obtained from the analysis reveals that trauma is not a terminal illness. Doctors can manage the condition effectively by providing patients with the necessary support. Most physicians who offer assisted suicide services to fail to follow psychiatric disorders. In this case, they violate the fundamental human rights to life and their duty to provide care and safety to patients and their family members. Physicians who disregard the importance of consulting a psychiatrist when administering euthanasia expose close family members to avoidable mental challenges like chronic stress. These factors that assisted suicide for traumatic patients cause more difficulties in society and fail to provide justifiable solutions to the affected people.
Works Cited
Berardelli, Isabella, et al. “Making Sense of the Unique Pain of Survivors: A Psychoeducational Approach for Suicide Bereavement.” Frontiers in Psychology, vol. 11, 30 June 2020, 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01244. Accessed 21 Sept. 2020.
Chan, Benny, and Margaret Somerville. “Converting the ‘Right to Life’ to the ’Right to Physician-Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia: An Analysis of Carter Vs. Canada (Attorney General), Supreme Court of Canada.” Medical Law Review, vol. 24, no. 2, 19 Apr. 2016, pp. 143–175, www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4914707/, 10.1093/medlaw/fww005. Accessed 10 May 2019.
Kim, Scott Y. H., et al. “Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide of Patients with Psychiatric Disorders in the Netherlands 2011 to 2014.” JAMA Psychiatry, vol. 73, no. 4, 1 Apr. 2016, p. 362, 10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2015.2887.