Living Old & Euthanasia

Living Old & Euthanasia

Euthanasia is the practice of ending the life of a human or animal that is incurably ill in a painless or minimally painful way, for the purpose of limiting suffering. Euthanasia is illegal in most of the United States. In the past 20 years, ballot initiatives and “legislation bills” within the U.S. are a result from attempts in making this legal. The United States’ religious and racial diversity causes public opinion to vary greatly among euthanasia and the right-to-die. Research supports public views on euthanasia tend to correlate with religious affiliation and race, not through gender, in the past 30 years. In 1997 Congress passed the “Assisted Suicide Funding Restriction Act” and President Clinton signed it into law. The law permanently prohibits the use of federal funds for assisted suicide. Also, it authorizes research into pain treatment and suicide prevention and requires a federal study of how health care professionals are trained in end-of-life care. June of 1997, The U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously to unhold statues from New York and Washington that prohibit assisted suicide in all cases, including terminal illness. Chief Justice Rehnquist said that absolute bans assisted-suicide violation neither the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment nor the Due Process Clause. In this Supreme Court ruling, several lower courts in- California, Michigan, and Florida- have upheld constitutionality of state bans on assisted suicide.

Laws around the world vary greatly with regard to euthanasia, and are constantly subject to change as cultural values shift and better palliative care, or treatments become available. It is legal in some jurisdictions, while in others it may be criminalized. These laws are clear in some nations but unclear, if they exist at all, in others. There is no specific federal law regarding either euthanasia or assisted suicide. All 50 states and the District of Columbia prohibit euthanasia under general homicide laws. Assistant suicide laws are handled at the state rather than the federal level. Pleas for euthanasia have been made from the terminally ill, and for compassionate and merciful release from prolonged and useless suffering, "right-to-die" societies have been formed in countries throughout the world. Discussion, debate and dialogue involve members of the healing community, philosophers, ethicists, psychologists, and representatives of major religious bodies which have taken pro or con stands on the issues involved. In their efforts to legitimize active euthanasia for the terminally ill, these right-to-die advocates argue that, in certain circumstances, a strong legal and moral case for voluntary euthanasia can be made on the basis of compassion and recognition of human rights. Right-to-die societies insist that both passive and active euthanasia must be rigidly controlled by laws that establish procedures, protocols and safeguards designed to regulate the careful application of euthanasia to certain qualified, terminally ill persons. Such laws would serve to protect the elderly from being coerced or exploited or devalued on the basis of age or handicaps or costs of treatment.

The central argument for euthanasia relates to the idea that people should have the right to die with dignity. They should be able to die with all their senses intact, and they should be able to die free of debilitating pain. Supporters, like myself, of this issue ask, "If people with terminal illnesses are comatose or going to die in pain, why prolong their suffering?" Legalized physician-assisted suicide would allow doctors to provide patients with such relief. Other supportive arguments focus on the cost for futile care, or care of exhausted patients on life support.

The primary argument against euthanasia revolves around the slippery-slope effect. This theory states that physicians and policy-makers will have difficulty