A Dignified Death: Do People Have the Right?

Alyssa Linderer

Mr. Higgins

Eng 1213

22 February 2016

A Dignified Death: Do People Have the Right?

        Euthanasia, or the ‘right to die’, is defined as “a person’s right to refuse medical measures to prolong life. . . especially in the case of a terminal illness.” (Dictionary.com). It is always difficult for family members to see a loved one suffering from an incurable disease, and yet at the same time they can be unwilling to let that person go. In many countries, such as the United Kingdom and a majority of the United States, it is illegal to help someone kill themselves, but it is not illegal for a physician to withhold life-saving drugs. Euthanasia is an extremely complex dilemma that involves issues regarding a person’s right to die, the dangers a society faces with legalization, the ability to prolong life through medical technology, the relief-of-suffering and quality of life.

        A strong argument for euthanasia is that everyone has the explicit right to die, whenever and however they choose. Many supporters of physician assisted suicide argue that a person has total control over their body, and that includes the manner in which they die. If there is no harm to others, the state and people have no right to interfere. Because death is a private matter, and the decision lies solely with the dying person, it would prevent the practice from being misused. In 1997, Oregon passed the Death with Dignity Act, which allows terminally-ill residents of Oregon to end their lives. Its strict rules have prevented abuse from the system: the patient must be an adult (18 years of age), a resident of Oregon, diagnosed with a terminal illness with less than six months to live, not suffering from any mental illness, and they must make two requests within two weeks. If approved, the patient must take the dose himself. As of 2014, one-hundred-and-five of the one-hundred-and-fifty-five patients issued prescriptions for lethal medications had died using Oregon’s Death with Dignity Act. 

        On the other side of the argument is the belief that euthanasia can, and will, become a slippery slope that leads to involuntary killing and, even worse, the deaths of those thought ‘undesirable’. It is very difficult to define the word ‘terminal’. For example, Jack Kevorkian, the inventor of the infamous “Suicide Machine”, defined terminal illness as “any disease that curtails life for even a day”, while Merriam-Webster simply defines it as “having an illness that cannot be cured and would one day lead to death.” As such, even depression could be defined as a terminal illness.  Opponents of a person’s right to die might point to the Netherlands: when first established in the early 1980s, the law clearly stated that only a conscious person can request physician assisted suicide, but eventually it expanded to allow the death of severely handicapped newborns, as an early death would be better for both the infant and parents. What is to stop doctors from assisting the severely depressed, the psychotic, or patients who are a burden on society and their family? A doctor’s primary duty is to heal and to do no harm; euthanasia, by its definition, is the ultimate abuse of that vow and gives too much power to a person. The patient will not know if their doctor is a healer or a killer. Despite all the regulations that would be put in place, it would be almost impossible to fully guarantee that every act of assisted suicide was in fact voluntary, and that doctors were simply not abusing their powers or worse, freeing up a bed in their hospital. 

        Another argument for physician assisted suicide is that there are already practices in place in end of life care that are similar to euthanasia in all but name. For example, patients (or their families) can make the decision to place a DNR (do not resuscitate) order, where the person requests not to receive treatment if their heart stops beating or they stop breathing. This is known as “passive euthanasia”, where a doctor can withdraw lifesaving assistance, and is in fact common in hospitals and is not illegal. When a doctor believes there is no hope for a coma patient, a family is allowed to withdraw life-sustaining help, such as a feeding tube or breathing machine, and let their loved one pass on. Many critics of euthanasia feel that families would choose physician assisted suicide before end-of-life care, but as Professor Gerrit Kimsma stated, “. . . Euthanasia and assisted suicide are a far cry from being ‘easier options for the caregiver’ than palliative care. . . there is no ‘either-or’ with respect to these options.” Every option must be exhausted before the idea of physician-assisted suicide is brought up.