Euthanasia

The first time I heard the now popular term assisted suicide was in 1996. A man named Dr. Kevorkian was being charged with murder; all over the news broadcasts the words assisted suicide were tossed around. My gut reactions to Dr. Kevorkian, the man who helped coin the phrase "assisted suicide" in America, is a sick and hateful man. I thought that killing a person for whatever reason was wrong. I have found that first opinion is only one side of the double-edged argument. Many, including physicians, think he is a saint. I decided to look in to the facts of each case and find out why so many people went to him for help. What I found was a new awareness and understanding of what it means to be human and humane. I believe now that everyone who is terminally ill, and also has written instructions in a living will, should have the right to their dying wishes carried out. Stating both sides quite thoroughly I will prove that assisted suicide should be a law and implemented in all the states of America if not the whole world.

The four key forms of physician-assisted suicide, or euthanasia, are passive euthanasia, active euthanasia, physician-assisted suicide, and involuntary euthanasia. As stated in the Religious Tolerance web site, these terms are defined as follows. "Passive euthanasia is the hastening of the death of a person by withdrawing some form of support and letting nature take it's course". This form of euthanasia has been quietly practiced for thousands of years. One example would be when "large doses of morphine is given to a patient to control pain, in spite of the likelihood of the painkillers suppressing respiration and causing an earlier death". Active euthanasia "involves causing the death of a person through a direct action in response to a request from that person". Shutting off respirators or not implementing CPR at a patients request are examples of this. Physician-Assisted suicide is "when a physician supplies information and/or the means of committing suicide (such as a large dose of sleeping pills) so that they can easily terminate their own life". This is what Dr. Kavorkian did to help 39 people end their lives with his so-called "Death Machine". Involuntary euthanasia "is the killing of a person in opposition to their wishes, this is a form of murder".

In 1994 Oregon became the first state to approve physician-assisted suicide. It is now held up in court proceedings under appeals and revision demands. The New England Journal of Medicine Editorial web site claims that "the main position against assisted suicide comes from some conservative religious groups, medical associations whose members are dedicated to saving and extending life. Plus groups concerned with disabilities, who fear that euthanasia is the first step towards a society that will kill disabled people against their will". Below I list several arguments against physician-assisted suicide and discuss why they are unpersuasive.

Questions about hospice care programs and pain management instead of assisted suicide has often been contested. Derek Humphry writes, "the period of love and companionship with family and friends is worth hanging around for". This means that the patient should not try to hasten their death because their family and friends need time to say good by. But Mark D. Uehling would argue "that it is inhumane not to minister the end of life choice of a patient that any Veterinarian would do to tend a crippled horse". "Each person has autonomy over their own life". Claim groups of agnostics, atheists and humanists. Also they state that "death can represent a relief of intolerable pain". Physical and or mental pain that can only be felt by the patient means that only the patient can decide weather enough is too much.

Ones intentions in aiding another in suicide are a lead reason for religious sects to protest euthanasia. Daniel P. Sulmasy emphasizes that "any one who kills a patient intends that the patient should die by way of that action". Daniel also claims "this is what makes killing wrong. If one allows a patient to die with specific intention that the patient should die by way of that action, this is also wrong". (10) Daniel gives a solution to this argument by imploring a way to "check one's intentions". (10) He rebukes "by simply asking 'how would I feel if the patient were not to die after my actions'"? "Would I feel that I had failed to accomplish what I had set out to do" "Or would I be open to the possibility that the patient might survive"? "If so, then the patients death was probably not one's intentions". (10) Physicians who assist a patient in dying still believe in the oath they take to uphold life and they can "accept the idea of a distinction between killing and allowing to die". (10) As early as the 16th century, "Catholic theologians developed the distinction between ordinary and extraordinary means" they used this distinction to decide whether or not to continue proving life-sustaining methods to the terminally ill. Proving that allowing a patient to die is not a new dilemma but and old solution to pain and suffering. (10) Physicians have the utmost authority to know then extraordinary means will need to be taken to sustain a patient's life, it is their job to know these things.

Marcia Angell, executive editor of the New England Journal of Medicine, observes "the most frequent argument against permitting assisted suicide is that it would inevitably lead to a gradual erosion of our respect for life". Also known as the slippery slope. Life is full of slippery slopes. "For medicine to try the impossible task of simply preventing suffering would be to diminish the scope of human life, of which demands some travail". Rose Cohen reports that "in the past, physician-assisted suicide was only possible in the case of incurable diseases. It is now practiced on patients with chronic pains and unspecified life expectations. Once the line has been crossed any one with any ailment can be justified for active termination". (12) There are as many ways to deal with the problem as people can think up. Marcia Angell M.D. gives two examples for solving the problem.

1. "Permit physician-assisted suicide under certain circumstances, but not euthanasia".(11)
2. "Draw the line strictly between voluntary and involuntary euthanasia, and only for competent patients". (11)

Rose Cohen, journalist for the Inside MS publication insists, "many people believe that permitting a progressive infirmity to continue right out to its natural end is cruel and pointless". (12)

Wrongly, many of the against arguments place the doctor at the center of the issue. When indeed the focus needs to shift onto more patient orientated discussions. Dr. Tulsky said, "its true that the ability to talk about this issue with a patient raised the intimacy of that relationship even more". Patients will be able to state, without sounding as though they are feeling sorry for them selves, that treatments of maximal doses of painkillers do little to ease suffering.