Sociology

The question of whether physicians should aid patients in dying is obviously a controversial one with only a few states in America such as Oregon Montana and Washington having legalized the practice (Robinson, 2010, para 4). Ethical as well as religious reasons have been raised over this matter and the following is a discussion on the same more so with the view that it is a call for alleviating pain and suffering from terminally ill patients

Should physician-assisted suicide be practiced
Assisted suicide with the assistance of the physician entails a physician prescribing to the patient the means to attain his death. In such a case, the physician is not directly involved in administering death to the patient as with euthanasia (Braddock  Tonelli, para 2). If one was to argue on the basis that people have the right to make their own decisions regarding how they would like to experience death, then the question of the right for a patient to get assisted suicide should cease to be controversial. This is so because such persons are competent enough at that stage of life as far as their death is concerned and therefore the autonomy in this matter ought to be respected. Furthermore, controversies arise along jurisdictions with some arguing for the preserving life under all circumstances. But when the matter goes down to the individual level, there is a change of interest as the states denial of right to assisted death is limiting the liberty that an individual should have. Personal liberty and autonomy should therefore be effective even in assisted suicide.  

Persons who would like to terminate their lives often do so due to the suffering and pain they are going through. Such is the case with terminally ill cancer patients among other sicknesses. It has been argued that terminally ill patients who are competent enough can choose to end their lives by refusing to undertake therapy. If such is the case and if justice were to reign across the board, then it would be justifiable to have patients whose refusal to undergo therapy would not speed up their death be assisted to die by physicians (Braddock  Tonelli, 8).

There are controversies on what constitute to suffering, the much it can be dealt with and the means to alleviate the suffering. Suppose suffering meant purely pain, then physician-assisted suicide would not be among the best means out. But if suffering extends to more burdens including psychological ones, assisted suicide would come in handy as a compassionate means of eradicating suffering that is unbearable to patients (Braddock  Tonelli, 9).

Controversial matters have been arising on why assisted suicide should or should not be legalized in most states. The question that prevails here is whether people still practice assisted suicide illegally and via crude means or not. Some have suggested that pain relievers such as morphine have been administered and a closer look into this is an indication of another form of assisted suicide (Braddock  Tonelli, para 12). Taking this to be the case, allowing physician-assisted suicide would be a good means of bringing the matter in the open for discussion and via other arguments, a leveled ground would be reached between the agonists and the protagonists.

Even with much support of the issue, the antagonists in this matter may be failing to see some of the dangers and ethical reasons raised by those against assisted suicide. By taking a religious ground, assisted suicide does not have a place in many as it is the beliefs of many that life should be considered sacred and therefore taking it away is a contradiction to the beliefs (Braddock  Tonelli, 14). To a society that observes these religious beliefs and morals, the controversy around this hot debate should rest that assisted death is unacceptable.

Looking into this matter deeply, one cannot fail to see the dangers of misuse of this practice if it were allowed. Some arguments say that terminally ill persons are likely to be forced to accept assisted suicide by malicious family members. If physician-assisted suicide were to take this cause, then there is no doubt that allowing it is courting enormous problems in the end. In addition, the question of what kind of suffering would be classified as one requiring the intervention of assisted suicide is controversial. This raises the question of its misuse again since some people may choose to have assisted suicide out of unsound mind such as depression. It is therefore justifiable to only allow it (if it must be) to persons of sound mind (Robinson, 2009 para 8). Additionally, physicians should also consider whether their actions are in tandem with the Hippocratic Oath of never administering poison but rather ensuring benefit to the patient by all means (Braddock  Tonelli, para 18).

Conclusion
The controversies surrounding the legalization of assisted suicide are well founded with both sides presenting strong arguments for their representative stands. With most reasons surrounding the ethics of this matter, it is important for any given society to determine the worthiness of observing its ethics and the much they can be adjusted to fit under special circumstances such as in whether to or not to allow physician-assisted suicide.