Political Lense of Physician-Assisted Suicide

Studying physician-assisted suicide (PAS) could lead to significant medical changes and lead to a variety of effects, positive and negative, for terminally ill patients. Amitai Heller, a senior staff attorney at Compassion and Choices, an organization specialized in dedicating themselves to the research of physician-assisted suicide, writes, "... the tenets of patient autonomy, self-determination, and the dignity of risk must be integrated into end-of-life practice to provide guidance where legal requirements are absent or ambiguous." (2023). Ezekiel J. Emanuel, a prominent medical doctor from Global Initiatives, states, "Overall, the firmest benefit of legalizing euthanasia and PAS would be to relieve the excruciating and unremitting pain of 25,000 or fewer dying Americans each year." (1999). The recognition of self-autonomy and patients’ rights is a long-term topic in the PAS debate.

In 1997, the United States Supreme Court analysis of PAS concluded its policies unconstitutional, as revealed by the globally accredited health journal, The Lancet. However, since there are no laws officially declaring its role within American healthcare, the right to physician-assisted death is left to interpretation by the states. In California, PAS is recognized as a legal right for suffering patients. The Penn Bioethics Journal, affirms, “The End of Life Act was introduced by Senators Lois Wolk and Bill Manning on January 20, 2015.” (2015).Additionally, the American Journal of Public Health states that this act is restrictive to patients inside hospice care, given a prognosis of six months or less to live, and that hospice patients can request a lethal prescription from their physician to end their lives. (2017). However, various states still struggle to recognize PAS as a fully anatomical right of patients. Dave Andrusko, a highly accredited author with various novels on national and political rights, highlights a Supreme Court case in Massachusettes surrounding PAS, stating that “.. the Massachusettes Supreme Judicial Court has ruled that state constitution does not protect physician-assisted suicide and that law around manslaughter prohibit the practice.” (2023). It is evident here that the implications of manslaughter create significant controversy as states grapple with the legalization of PAS, struggling to separate it from the unconstitutional interpretations of its effects. Nevertheless, the clear incentive is there; allowing terminally ill patients and families relief from prolonged pain.

However, in the views of various politicians and doctors, PAS is not a viable option for patients. The National Right to Life News quotes Floridian doctors in 2023, stating their concerns on the political boundaries and availability for misuse in PAS. Many have voiced their concerns about the brand-new passage of this process and its uncertain outcomes. Doctors fear that PAS will bring about unnecessary deaths through inexperienced hands. Further support from the American Medical Association reveals that “22.5 percent of oncologists supported physician-assisted suicide. The highest percentage, 32.3 percent, was among surgical oncologists, and the lowest, 20.5 percent, was among medical oncologists.” (2016). In medical circumstances, physicians have a constitutional duty to safeguard a patient’s well-being. The implementation of PAS violates a physician’s obligation as a healer and thereby is not highly Wang 3 regarded within medical practices. Europe offers various eclectic views on PAS. In the Netherlands, PAS is legalized, seeing the act as a prevention of death rather than enabling it. The Culture, Medicine, and Psychiatry journal provides insight into this perspective, “Psychiatrists need to reflect on providing this recognition in earlier phases of treatment, taking seriously and discussing a wish for PAD in treatment is beneficial to patients. It provides space for the patient to discuss their wishes and could cause them not wanting to die anymore,” (2022).

There is a wide range of political aspects to physician-assisted suicide. Globally, it is considered unconstitutional in the federal United States Supreme Court, yet many European states have legalized its usage. A majority of the states in the U.S., such as Massachusetts, have yet to comply with the practice of legally assisted death. California, being the 6th state to implement this, is guided by a plethora of political policies to prevent its malpractice in the medical system. Physician-assisted suicide is a nuanced debate that has yet to be fully explored. However, through the political guidance of its perspective, a general understanding of its effects can be formed.