Euthanasia

Euthanasia: Your Right to Choose Dwayne Wright Strayer University Prof. Hannah Weir 5/23/11 Eng 215: Research & Writing Should we force those who are terminally ill to continue to suffer for as long as we can force them to' This is an ethical and legal question that people have been asking for years. Commonly referred to as mercy killing, assisted suicide and euthanasia are unique practices of ending the life of an individual suffering with a terminal disease, illness or an incurable condition by means of lethal injection, in the first case, or by the suspension of extraordinary medical treatment. When people ask to die, they should not be denied the right simply to prolong life because this simply prolongs suffering. It is possible to argue that euthanasia is the ultimate civil right, and that to deprive mentally competent, terminally ill people who want to end their suffering of this choice is to fundamentally disrespect their right to personal autonomy. Consequently, there are many reasons why legislation should be passed to allow those who are terminally ill to be given the right to die. The history of this worldwide phenomena dates back for centuries, but it wasn’t until 1906 when the first bill to legalize euthanasia in America was introduced in the Ohio legislature. For several years, legislatures have been turning down bills aimed at the legalization of euthanasia in the United States. In 1937, the Nebraska legislature voted down a bill legalizing voluntary active euthanasia in the U.S. Only two years later, the New York legislature rejected a bill that was also aimed at the legalization of euthanasia in the United States. In 1991 the Washington State Initiative Bill legalizing voluntary euthanasia was narrowly defeated. In 1994, Oregon passed a law to allow doctors to prescribe lethal drugs, but an injunction prevented it from taking effect. Unlike the United States, in Belgium, lawmakers have agreed on the provisions of a key article in a draft proposal to legalize euthanasia. The proposed bill would not only allow doctors to euthanize terminally- ill patients, but also those who are incurably ill with years left to live. In Michigan, the assisted suicide ballot initiative was defeated due to television ads which are now shifting gears to focus on alternatives to assisted suicide such as hospice care. However, advocates for assisted suicide in Michigan released their own radio and television ads in attempts to counter the anti-proposal ads. As of today, euthanasia is still illegal in nearly every country in the world. In fact, it is currently only legal in the Netherlands and the state of Oregon. Oregon permits assisted suicide while the Netherlands permits both euthanasia and assisted suicide (Hendin, 1997). To clarify, over the course of history, different types of consent for euthanasia have been acknowledged, eluded to earlier in the proposed legislations. There is Voluntary consent, when a person wants to be euthanized; Involuntary consent, when a person does not want to be euthanized; and Non-voluntary consent, when a person is unable to consent to euthanasia, in which case another individual such as a spouse or family member consents for him or her. With regard to involuntary euthanasia, a person should never be killed against their own will, no matter the circumstances. An example of this form of euthanasia can be found in the case of Christine Malevre, a French nurse, who helped six terminally ill patients die over the years of 1997 and 1998. The dilemma here is that it isn't clear whether the people wanted to be euthanized or not. The victims’ families even stated that the deceased persons never mentioned or gave indications of wanting to be euthanized. In the case of non-voluntary euthanasia, we find an example of a young boy who was very deformed and not expected to live. In this instance, the parents of the baby involuntarily decided to end its life. Many believe that this was the right thing to do, and that the child’s parents should have the choice to do it. However, the doctors involved decided to take the case to court and get an order to attempt to save the boy. They did eventually win the court decision and worked very hard to save the child’s life, but in the end no miracle was performed and as predicted, the baby died after what can only be imagined as over two very painful weeks of life Barnett, 1999). This was an example of where the parents’ decision to end the baby's life was the better choice because there was proof that the child would not live long, and for the time he would be alive, he would be in great pain. The main problem is who decides if and when euthanasia should be carried out. In some instances, the relatives of an incurably ill person make the decision based on what they think the ailing family member wants. In other cases, a patient may have prepared a will dictating that they want to have life supporting machines turned off if there is no hope. In the recent case of Terri Schiavo, a woman from Florida who suffered from brain damage and had been in a coma since 1990, her husband succeeded in getting her feeding tube removed. The parents of Mrs. Schiavo were opposed to this and fought a legal battle in court requesting the doctors put the tube back in. However, in the end, they lost and in 2005, two weeks after the feeding tube had been removed, Terri died. On another side of the spectrum, we have a well publicized physician. Dr. Jack Kevorkian recently died on June 3, 2011 in Bloomfield, Michigan at the age of 83. During his life, Dr. Kevorkian became known as "Dr. Death'' for participating in a string of physician-assisted suicides that set off a fierce debate over the right to die which landed him in prison after a conviction for murder in 1991. He was charged for murder in both 1991 and 1992 when patients of his used a suicide machine he developed, and his medical license was revoked. Later, both charges were dropped when state judges pointed out that there were no laws against assisted suicide in the state of Michigan. It wasn’t until 1993 when assisted suicide laws took effect, and Kevorkian, who had killed several more patients by this time, was charged again for murder. He served some brief jail time but was later released that year when supporters posted his bail. Between 1994 and 1996, Kevorkian was tried four times in the deaths of ill people before finally being convicted in 1999 of giving a fatal injection to Thomas Youk, a 52-year-old man who had Lou Gehrig’s disease. The main evidence against him was a tape showing the injection that Dr. Kevorkian had taken to “60 Minutes,” the CBS News program. He received a sentence of 10 to 25 years but only served eight of them in prison. He has been hailed by some as a hero and by others, little more than a serial killer (Smith, 2000). Despite the varying views criticizing and supporting his practice, Dr. Kevorkian’s critics and supporters generally agree on this: As a result of his stubborn and often intemperate advocacy for the right of the terminally ill to choose how they die, hospice care has boomed in the United States, and physicians have become more sympathetic to their pain and more willing to prescribe medication to relieve it. In 1997, Oregon became the first state to enact a statute making it legal for physicians to prescribe lethal medications to help terminally ill patients end their lives, and in 2006, the United States Supreme Court upheld a lower court ruling that found Oregon’s Death With Dignity Act protected a legitimate medical practice (Keith, 2011). If euthanasia were to be legalized on a broad scale, there would naturally be laws to regulate the use of it. A main component in the process of getting euthanized would be the determination of why the individual wants to be euthanized. This determination would be made by a group of noted and respected physicians and psychologists, to gather if the person wanting the euthanasia procedure is terminally ill or in great pain. They would also need to determine if the person is of sound mind and capable to make this decision. Proponents argue that legalizing euthanasia is a necessary insurance policy that will ensure that no one dies in painful suffering or unrelenting agony. Advocates also contend that assisted suicide is little different from pain control since both use strong narcotics, and since patient deaths are occasionally and unintentionally hastened as a side effect of the drugs used in sedation. Acknowledging worries about potential abuses, advocates assure that protective guidelines would protect the vulnerable from wrongful death while still permitting suffering patients who are eligible for assisted suicide to obtain a peaceful and dignified death. Proponents also claim that opposition to euthanasia is based primarily in religion and that laws prohibiting the practice are thus unconstitutional because they violate the division between church and state. Reflecting the religious and cultural diversity of the United States, there is a wide range of public opinion about euthanasia and the right-to-die movement. During the past 30 years, public opinion research shows that views on euthanasia tend to correlate more with religious affiliation and culture, than any other factor. In one study dealing primarily with Christians, Southern Baptists, Pentecostals, Evangelicals and Catholics tended to be opposed to euthanasia. Moderate Protestants, (e.g., Lutherans and Methodists) showed mixed views concerning end of life decisions in general. Both of these groups showed less support than non-affiliates, but were less opposed to it than conservative Protestants. Respondents that did not affiliate with a religion were found to support euthanasia more than those who did. The liberal Protestants (including some Presbyterians and Episcopalians) were the most supportive. In general, liberal Protestants affiliate more loosely with religious institutions and their views were similar to those of non-affiliates. Within all groups, religiosity (i.e., self-evaluation and frequency of church attendance) also correlated to opinions on euthanasia. Individuals who attended church regularly and more frequently and considered themselves more religious were found to be more opposed to euthanasia than to those who had a lower level of religiosity (The Hague, 1991). Opponents counter that legalizing assisted suicide would lead to a dangerous slippery slope with legalized killing eventually being permitted for disabled, elderly, and depressed persons, as well as for those who are not mentally competent to request to die. There is a problem that people who want assisted suicides aren't always terminally ill. They could just be in great amounts of pain or even very depressed and unhappy about life. Opponents further argue that the economics of modern medicine would promote euthanasia as a form of health care cost containment, noting that the drugs utilized in an assisted suicide procedure cost approximately fifty dollars, while proper care for a dying patient can cost tens of thousands. Opponents also note that forty-four million Americans do not have health insurance, and that medicine is sometimes practiced in a discriminatory manner against racial and other minorities. Thus, they argue that the last people to receive medical treatment will be the first to receive assisted suicide. Opponents also deny that there is widespread surreptitious euthanasia practiced in clinical medicine, citing several published studies as proof, and urge that hospice care and proper medical treatment provide the morally acceptable answers to the difficulties that are sometimes associated with the process of dying. An individual’s right to determine the time and manner of their death is more important than keeping a suffering person alive for the sake of preserving life. It is understandable that the legalization of euthanasia will likely lead to an excuse for many people who are not terminally ill to end their own lives. However, this is why an evaluation by a mental health professional for those suspected to have clinical depression or mental incompetence would be necessary, as it can help prevent most of these occurrences. As with any controversial issue, there are many good points and bad points to the legalization of assisted suicide. Effectively, it can be a good thing, if an individual is truly suffering and has no hopeful prospects for the future. Bibliography Barnett, E. (1999, January 17). Dilemma of Assisted Suicide: When' Oregonian. Barnett, E. (1999, March 11). A Family Struggle: Is Mom Capable of Choosing to Die' See additional information on Kate Cheney. Oregonian. Barnett, E. (1999, March 11). Man with ALS makes up his mind to die. Oregonian. Fraser, L. (2001). NHS patients 'die without proper care or pain relief. Retrieved May 9, 2011 from http://www.telegraph.co.uk:8...tmo=rrrrrrrq&pg=/et/01/5/27/npain27.html Groenewoud, J. H. et al. (2000). Clinical Problems with the Performance of Euthanasia and Physician-Assisted Suicide in the Netherlands. New England Journal of Medicine, 342, 553-555. Hendin, H. (1997). Physician-Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia in the Netherlands: Lessons from the Dutch. Journal of the American Medical Association, 277, 1720-1722. (1991). Medical Decisions About the End of Life, I. Report of the Committee to Study the Medical Practice Concerning Euthanasia. (Also known as the Remmelink Report) The Hague, 1 of 2, 15. (2001, February 7). Rationing 'only option' for NHS. BBC New Online. Retrieved May 9, 2011, from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/1156665.stm Smith, W. J. (2000). Culture of Death: The Assault on Medical Ethics in America. New York: Encounter Books. Schneider, K. (2011, June 3). Dr. Jack Kevorkian Dies at 83; A Doctor Who Helped End Lives. The New York Times.