Right To Die

Euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide (PAS) have both become very debatable topics over the years. During the last decade, Dr. Kevorkian and other doctors have brought these practices to light even more by making headlines in the news. Throughout this paper, the topics of euthanasia and PAS are going to be examined, the differences between them stated, the pros and cons to these, and finally my own personal view on this very controversial topic.

First of all, it is necessary to explain what euthanasia and PAS are and what differentiates the two. Both are acts that result in a person's death so as to relieve pain and suffering (Gittelman, 1999). However, the two are not the same, because euthanasia is an action taken by a physician that results in another person's death. There are two types of euthanasia, voluntary and involuntary. Voluntary euthanasia occurs when a competent person decides to end his or her life. Involuntary euthanasia down not obtain a persons' consent: it goes against his or her wishes. PAS occurs when a physician is present, but the dying person takes his or her own life by administering to him or herself, a lethal dosage of medication.

Throughout history, euthanasia has played a major role. Euthanasia began in pre-Socratic times when it was referred to as the psycho logic preparation or comforting of a dying person (Gittelman, 1999). During the 1800's, Darwinism led to the idea of eugenics, which is improving society by helping the rich and ignoring the poor. The Nazis also had a hand in this by employing involuntary euthanasia by ridding the world of inferior populations. Many German physicians were at the forefront of this euthanasia program, selecting the mentally and physically disabled (Gittelman, 1999). Here in the United States, euthanasia began with the use of morphine in the 1800's. Today there is a great deal of medical technology which has been able to prolong the lives of people, but can be very costly and painful, which leads to the debate about being able to end one's life.

So, the debate begins on whether or not it is right for a person whom is terminally ill and suffering to take his or her own life. This debate also brings in the physicians who participate in PAS and whether or not they should be allowed to do this. With the ever growing cost of medical care it is important to keep the option of self termination viable. Citizens should have the right to choose life or death and the role of government should be as limited as possible.

Today, the United States' health care system is moving towards managed care in order to cut the costs of health care. With managed care, doctors are being urged to cut costs and curtail treatments unless quantifiable results can be achieved and the company can earn a profit. With this in mind, patients who are terminally ill may not receive some medications that can help alleviate pain. In these instances is where euthanasia and PAS come in to help provide these patients with the most comfortable and affordable choices possible.

Probably the most common point brought up by supporters of euthanasia is the right to die. But what we are discussing is not giving a right to the person who is killed, but to the person whom does the killing. Basically euthanasia is not about the right to die; it is about the right to kill. Euthanasia is not about giving rights to the person who dies but, instead, is about changing the law, and public policy so that doctors, relatives and others can directly and intentionally end another person's life. People do have the power to commit suicide and since suicide and attempted suicide are not criminalized why should the medical community fall under different laws? Suicide is a terrible, individual act that involves one person's thoughts whereas euthanasia is not about a private act. This act is the thought processes of letting one person assist the death of another. That is a matter of public concern since it can lead to remarkable abuse, and the exploitation of the patients we are caring for.

There have been numerous amounts of surveys done by organizations that take results on the medical industries views on euthanasia and PAS. One such survey that was based on a questionnaire sent in 1996 to 3,102 physicians; 1,902 doctors responded anonymously. In all, 11% of respondents said they had ever received a request for a lethal injection (euthanasia) and 18% said they had been asked for a prescription for an overdose of pills to end life (assisted suicide). Five percent said they had ever given such an injection, while 3% had written a lethal prescription; since some doctors had done both, the cumulative total of doctors who had ever helped deliberately end a patient's life was 6%. While most of those who engaged in such behavior had done so only once or twice, one doctor claimed to have written 25 prescriptions and given 150 lethal injections (Meier, 1998).

There is a plethora of information that opposes euthanasia. During my research I came across an article about palliative care. The World Health Organization defines palliative care as:

The active, total care of patients whose disease is not responsive to curative treatment. Control of pain, other symptoms and psychological, social, and spiritual problems is paramount. The goal of palliative care is the achievement of the best quality of life for patients and families (Farsides, 1998, 149).

Palliative care is similar to the hospice programs offered around in the United States. This type of care seeks to make the person as comfortable as possible during their final days. These measures also help the families cope with the inevitable loss of a loved one. Palliative care has become an opposition against euthanasia, a choice in the battle of dying. However, if palliative care is seen as anti-euthanasia then it could pose a problem. People may see that this type of care is not the answer and will choose euthanasia over it. Instead the two sides should work together, instead of pitting on side against the other.

Another problem that people find with euthanasia can be found in the Netherlands where it has been legalized. The term "slippery slope" came up in an article I found when researching. The term meaning occurs when states and countries begin to legalize this practice. The slippery slope refers to a person's right to choose. The article points out that if we let terminally ill patients choose to end their lives then what is to say that someone who feels that life is not worth living may decide the same. The slope also refers to the problems in which doctors in the Netherlands admitted to administering palliative drugs at least partly with the intention of shortening life without discussing it with patients (Gillon, 1999).

The flip