Doctor-Assisted Suicide

Doctor-assisted suicide is when a doctor allows the death of a patient by providing the
means and information to the patient to perform the act under the patient decision. There is also
a similar act known as Euthanasia; the doctor is allowed by law, to end a person's life painlessly
with the consent and approval of the patient and their family. This may be voluntary or
involuntary. It is voluntary when the patient can consent, though if the patient is not in the
proper medical condition to do so, the decision is made by an appropriate person, this is called
non-voluntary. Apart from that, there is involuntary, when euthanasia is performed with
performed without the consent of the patient even if they are able to do so. It is against the
person's will, simply murder.

It is difficult to conclude a proper decision when put in this situation, hence it is a moral
dilemma. Both possible decisions break some principles of health care physicians, so it comes to
the conclusion, of which of those principles is most important. One of those said principles is
respect for autonomy. Respect the patient's right to govern their own life, respecting their
decisions. If that were to be the only principle it would be wrong to go against that, and there
wouldn't even be a moral dilemma in the first place but that is not the case. There are the
principles to do no harm and beneficence, which initially, a doctor-assisted suicide would
completely go against that. I say initially, to allow the questions, is it really harming a patient, and
doesn't it still provide some sort of benefit to the patient? In one of the articles I read, they talk
about a similar act that has been done for so long and is even seen as an act of kindness. It is the
process of putting down your pet. What is the difference between a human and a pet, besides
their anatomy, that creates such controversy to do the same for people? I feel as though it is
much better compared to pets as we can communicate with the patient. We can inform the
possibilities of their treatment allowing them to make a proper decision for themselves. Of
course, when a patient is unable to make such a decision, their appropriate person, a family
member, can help make the decision, just as we already do as pet owners. With that in mind, it
wouldn't be ethically wrong. However, there is an argument with morals and religion, that in
some faiths it is seen as a form of murder and just morally wrong. “Morally, there is an argument
that euthanasia will weaken society’s respect for the sanctity of life.” In addition to that, there is
the condition of the patient's mental state, which could cloud their judgment. What's more, is the
possibility of recovery. As said in the beginning, one of the principles is beneficence, to always
have the intent to do good when making choices for the patient. It is normal for a patient to feel
dejected, and feel as though death is the only possible way to gain relief. That is why it is the
healthcare's job to provide information about possible treatments to a patient, especially when
the patient is inclined to make the decision of doctor-assisted suicide.
Legalizing(or Decriminalizing) Marijuana
The topic of legalizing marijuana has been an ongoing debate throughout the world.
What makes it difficult to legalize is the classification marijuana is already in, a Schedule I Drug.
According to the Controlled Substances Act, a Schedule I drug is “a Schedule I drug has a high
potential for abuse, has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States, and
lacks accepted safety for use under medical supervision.” This then resulted in the sale,
possession, and consumption of marijuana illegal.

This debate holds two strong points of view, both having various evidence to back them
up. One thing that makes it difficult to make a conclusion is that marijuana has a significant
amount of both negative and positive effects on the body. Should we deny patients a new
ability to gain relief, or protect them from the health consequences that could follow? A
significant part of the negative side effects is the usual method to intake marijuana, smoking.
This can result in problems such as lung damage, and increased risk of cancer, this argument is
then battled by the statement to allow methods other than smoking. Even then, there are other
concerns and risks associated with medical marijuana. An example would be the short and long-
term cognitive effects. The short-term includes impairments of memory, sense of time, problem-
solving, verbal fluency, etc. In addition to that, are the long-term effects, the inability to learn and
remember new information. Another concern is, of course, addiction, with 9% of adult marijuana
users already addicted, the possible risk is more likely to occur to those who begin to use when
they are under the age of 18. With this in mind, it's only natural for people especially healthcare
physicians to oppose legalizing marijuana. It would go against their principles as it does more
harm than good to patients. Specifically the principle to do no harm. Well, if that's the case what
about the principle of beneficence? Granted this principle still goes along with the opposing side,
but its does the same to the supporting side. Many studies have shown the positive effects of
marijuana, especially on cancer patients. Melissa Etheridge a famous singer/songwriter has even
expressed that it has helped relieve nausea and pain caused by her chemotherapy, it wasn't
addictive or a high but just simply helped her get through the day. Furthermore, there are other
possible medical uses that have been found for patient suffering from AIDs, anorexia, arthritis,
glaucoma, and chronic pain. One would be the benefits of smoked marijuana for patients with
multiple sclerosis, spinal cord injuries, and other sorts of trauma. Smoked marijuana has the
ability to relieve spasticity, pain, and tremors. Well then doesn't that mean it is like any other
drug already being prescribed? It would seem so but the problem is there isn't enough
information to really conclude such a statement. Legalization cannot happen without enough
evidence but it is difficult to have the needed evidence because of the classification of marijuana
as a Schedule I drug. The problems are not only limited to medicine. The legalization of
marijuana in California has affected the environment as well. The crops of marijuana has
threatened wild life, leading to the deaths of weasels, spotted owls, and many other animals. Not
only that it has contaminated the environment deep in California's forests. Aside from that, in
Portugal, there has been a decline in drug use, and drug-associated death since the legalize
marijuana in 2001.