Euthanasia

Euthanasia: Assisted Suicide for the Dying

Rebecca Veal

University of Phoenix

Com 125 Utilizing Information in College Writing

W9A4

Instructor: Elena Asher

August 13, 2006

Euthanasia: Assisted Suicide for the Dying

Only among the human race is it accepted that we allow another human being to lie in pain and suffer a slow agonizing death while we stand by and do nothing when the inevitable outcome is death. Humphry declared, "It is not always easy to die, even when a person is mortally ill and desires a quick end" (2006, p13). Although it is considered a crime to assist in a death is it not morally wrong to stand by and watch someone, whether it is a loved one or stranger, who wishes to end his suffering, endure an agonizing painful death? If the person desires and has made known the desire to end his life for reasons of terminal illness are we bound by law to watch them suffer or obligated by compassion to assist?

There is not one person who neither has the desire nor wishes to die. But patients who are suf-fering from the effects of a terminal illness and have to be cared for have lost their sense of inde-pendence. Their self- esteem has plummeted to an all time low and tends to act as an assault on their sense of self- worth. For some it is the loss of their dignity they fear the most. The solution they seek for is not death but a means to escape the suffering. They realize it is not within their power to control what is left of a meaningless life, so they make the decision to control their death. This has become their way of holding on to what little dignity they have left.

According to Poe "euthanasia may be classified along several lines, many of which overlap" (1990 p.275). Medical euthanasia is that which is authorized by a physician for the benefit of the individual. Active euthanasia, or sometimes called positive euthanasia, is the deliberate merciful act to end suffering or meaningless existence. Death may result from a direct action to terminate life, or it may be induced by indirect actions such as a slight overdose of drugs. Active euthana-sia is often referred to as "mercy killing" and may be voluntary or involuntary.

Voluntary euthanasia is at the request or the will of the person suffering. Involuntary euthana-sia is that which is compulsory and contrary to the wishes of the sufferer.

Physician-assisted suicide (PAS) is where a doctor provides lethal drugs to a dying patient with which he may end his own life. When a person whom is terminally ill chooses to end his own life he may ask a physician for assistance. If the physician gives aid in helping this patient to die it is known as active voluntary euthanasia. Physician assisted suicide is the action of di-rectly helping another to die on request by providing or administering a lethal drug knowing that it is meant to take another's life.

The dilemma is, who or, what has the right to make the final decision that the patient is sure to die, or that healing is conclusively not an issue. Can one mark the absolute finality of another having an illness that cannot be cured? Could there be the possibility of a mistaken diagnosis and judgment of incurability or remission? As for the Christians point of view, is there a possibility of divine healing? These are questions that are to be taken into consideration before any final de-cisions are made concerning assisted suicide.

The concept of euthanasia inevitably provokes a moral dilemma for many Americans, be-cause euthanasia gives individuals the freedom to choose whether to live or die (Allen, Chavez, DeSimone, Howard, Johnson, La Pierre, Montero, and Sanders, June 2006). A patient who feels he is a burden to family members may feel the pressure to sacrifice him self out of consideration for others. Some may feel that the legalization of euthanasia may result in more problems than it will solve and others may feel that legalization would weaken public and social morality and amoralize the medical profession (Poe, 1990). Another dilemma among society concerning euthanasia is the possibility that legalization would lead to abuse of the law and possible foul play

The religious opposition against euthanasia comes from the sixth commandment which says, "Thou shalt not kill." Only a sovereign God has the right to determine when life shall end. Chris-tians feel that human life is sacred and must not be taken by man and the nature of death and suf-fering for the person and family must be allowed to run its course.

From the medical standpoint physicians must take the Hippocratic Oath which prohibits doc-tors from granting a request for euthanasia because it is a doctor's duty to save a life, not destroy it. Future discoveries hold promises of cures just around the corner; a disease or a condition con-sidered incurable today may be curable tomorrow. Some physicians when asked the question concerning euthanasia or assisted suicide have shied away from truthful answers because they are fearful of not being accepted into positions due to their beliefs on the subject. The results of the other physicians who participated in the polls are shown in the graph below:

As anyone can see, according to the graph and the results of the polls more agree with euthanasia and are willing to perform but few have committed the act of assisting a patient to die.

Doctors that have been consulted by patients on this subject have tried to curtail around it by of-fering palliative care. The doctor's desire is to save a life not take a life. If the patient in his right mind chooses to pursue this way then the physician may ask "what can I do to help?"

Many states within the United States have taken polls to legalize euthanasia with negative re-sults. "Oregon is the only state in the U.S. to have legalized (PAS) and not euthanasia, and that

too under certain circumstances in 1977 (Gupta, 2006)." The results of those polls are shown in the graph below.

As seen in the graph Washington and California polls showed that more were in favor than those that were opposed but when it came to the actual vote and the opponents were able to focus on the debate and present in-depth reasons to oppose legalization, the initiative lost by a 54 to 46 vote. On the, other hand, Oregon too, had a 70% favorable initiative but upon actual voting they