Thank you for taking the time to review my essay. This is a rough draft for my research paper for English 102. My goal was to explain what euthanasia is, as well as arguments for and against this practice. I tend to be weak when it comes to citing my sources in MLA format. I also feel like the conclusion is weak. I sometimes struggle writing structured paragraphs that flow into each other. Any and all feed back would be greatly appreciated.
Euthanasia: Compassionate Death or Merciless Killing?"
By Benjamin Hernandez
Benjamin Hernandez
Ryan Jones
Eng 102: Class # 13018
May 15th, 2013
There are many topics that are hotly debated in our country. Abortion, capital punishment, and gay marriage are among the few that seem to be at the center of many news broadcast and political debates. However, one that seems to not currently be on the forefront would be Euthanasia, or Physician-assisted suicide (PAS). Currently, only three states have legalized PAS; Montana, Oregon and Washington. These states have strict guidelines one must follow in order to end their life with the help of a physician. They include eligibility requirements, physician protocols and timelines that must be followed. Support for such a practice varies from person to person. Political and religious factors certainly play a role in the way people view euthanasia ("State Laws"; "Opinion Polls"). In order for one to have an opinion, it is important to truly understand the details involved.
The word Euthanasia stems from a Greek word that can be translated "a good death." Euthanasia can be classified into two different categories, active and passive. Passive euthanasia is when a patient does not receive life sustaining treatments, such as medications, tube feedings or mechanical ventilation, that result in the patients death. Passive euthanasia is legal in all states in the form of Do Not Resuscitate (DNR) orders. Patients are also legally allowed to refuse any types of treatment or therapy they would like, even if it results in their death. This practice is generally approved of in our society. Active euthanasia, which is much more controversial, is when a physician intervenes on behalf of the patient with the intent of ending their life (Bryant 424).
Active and passive euthanasia can then be split into multiple categories. First there is voluntary euthanasia. This is euthanasia with the consent of the patient. The patient would request in some way for a physician to help them end their life in the manor of their choosing. Involuntary euthanasia is without the consent of the patient. This in all intent and purposes would be murder. One would classify the actions of Hitler against the Jewish people as involuntary euthanasia. Lastly, there in nonvoluntary, which is when the patients wishes are not known and communication with the patient is no longer possible (Bryant 242).This type can also be very controversial. One very high profile case would be that of Terri Shiavo who was in a vegetative state and unable to communicate her wishes. Her family had a long legal battle for years that ultimately ended in her being taken off of life support.
Often times patients look to physicians to alleviate the pain and suffering they might feel. Physicians have the knowledge and training to end a patients life with medications in a peaceful, pain free way. Physicians also have the ability to write patients prescriptions for medications that would allow the patient to end their own life. However, whether or not they have the authority to do so is the center of much debate. When a patient is unable to receive the help they need from a physician, many resort to other forms of suicide. This practice often times is extremely traumatic for all parties involved, mainly because the easiest methods of doing so tend to be in a violent manor. Suicide also tends to be based on rash decisions and false judgments. Is there a difference between irrational suicide and voluntary death?
The terms mercy-killing and merciful death may seem synonymous to some, however James Park, an independent existential philosopher with deep interest in medical ethics, argues that they are very different. He feels mercy killing should be a crime because it is harmful, irrational, capricious and regrettable. Often times people act on emotion and don't put much thought into all the details and consequences of the matter. On the other hand, a merciful death should be permitted and supported because he believes it is helpful, rational, well-planned and an admirable thing to do. More thought and planning goes into this form of euthanasia. Patients carefully weigh all their options before making a decision. James Park even drafted a law embodying 26 safeguards that should be put into place that would help differentiate between these two different processes (Park).
Like James Park, there are many supporters of ones right to choose when their life should end. America prides itself on a persons right to choose. We as a society are free to make whatever decisions we would like, as long as it falls within the boundaries of our laws. Our own constitution allows us many liberties and rights with the limitation of government control in our own personal affairs. When it comes to a patients medical care, unless they are a minor, a patient has the legal right to accept or refuse any treatment they want, even if it results in their death. However, the patients right to choose ends in most states when they desire to end their own life when terminally ill. If we as a society feel that we have autonomy over our own bodies and decision making abilities, then naturally we should have the choice as to when and how our lives should end. In 1970 over two dozen Nobel Prize Laureates, scientists and religious and humanist leaders signed "A Plea for Beneficent Euthanasia" arguing that there are instances when a meaningful or significant life may not be possible. In these cases humans should be allowed to die peacefully and with dignity in the manor of their choosing (Speckhardt).
Another supporter of PAS was Dr. Jack Kevorkian, whom many feel was the pioneer in Physician-assisted suicide. Dr. Kevorkian made headlines in 1990 for performing the first acknowledged case of medically assisted suicide. He believed that people had the right to choose this form of death. This is evident in his statement "I believe that there are people who are healthy and mentally competent enough to decide on suicide. People who are not depressed. Everyone has a right for suicide, because a person has a right to determine what will or will not be done to his body. There is no place for people to turn today who really want to commit suicide. Teenagers, and the elderly especially, have no where to turn. But when they come to me, they will obey what I say because they know they're talking to an honest doctor. I can talk a teenager out of suicide easily if he comes to me, because he knows if its justified I'll help him do it." Dr. Kevorkian believed that the courts have no business dictating how medicine should be practiced. He also supported a strict code of ethics to be created to regulate PAS (Statement).
Real life accounts are also a window for us to look into when it comes to public opinion of euthanasia. A recent local situation in Sun City shined a spot light on euthanasia. George Sanders, and 86 year old man, killed his sick and dying wife. He got a revolver and shot her in the head. He stated that with her health deteriorating and the possibility of her having to spend the rest of her life in a nursing home, she begged him to kill her. George was arrested and charged with first-degree murder. He later negotiated a deal where he would plead guilty to manslaughter and could face up to 12 years in prison. His family supported him and did not want him prosecuted. They understood the unique and difficult circumstances he was faced with. The lawyer prosecuting the case even requested the judge not sentence George to any prison, instead requested unsupervised probation, which was the lightest sentence he could receive. The judge did just that. Judge Ditsworth was quoted as saying that his decision "tempers justice with mercy" (Skoloff). Clearly there is a level of compassion and support people have for those who are faced with such a terrible circumstance.
Procon posted a number of polls from such sources as Gallup, Angus Reid, CBS news, Fox news, and ABC news regarding public opinion in this matter. When asked if legalizing euthanasia would give people who are suffering an opportunity to ease their pain, 70% agreed. Also, when asked if a parent is found guilty of assisting a terminally ill child's death, what should be their punishment, the majority by a margin of 15% stated no penalty at all (Opinion Polls). According to The National Opinion Research Center, the majority of people in the United States support physician-assisted death under two conditions: the patient has a terminal illness and is voluntary. According to polls, 63% support a persons right to die, and 71% support the right of physicians to end a persons life (Bryant 425). Clearly public opinion appears to be different then the laws that the majority of states uphold.
Patients who are suffering have the right to end their life, and prefer to die at the time and manner of their choosing. When faced with excruciating pain and prolonged agony, it is only natural to want to be allowed to alleviate that suffering. Many are afraid their illness will rob them of their dignity and do not want to become completely dependent on other. Caring for a sick an dying loved one takes up much time and resources. People should have the right to choose whether they want their loved ones to be put through that process (Bryant 425). Still many believe that doctors have no business being involved in the active euthanizing of patients.
When a doctor graduates from medical school they swear an oath called the Hippocratic oath. Many feel this oath is no longer sacred and merely tradition. The Hippocratic oath is one of the oldest binding documents in history, dating back to the early 5th century B.C. General principles such as to treat the sick, preserve a patients privacy, and teach medicine to the next generation are held sacred by most physicians today. However, modern versions have omitted many principles from the original oath. According to a 1993 survey of 150 U.S. and Canadian medical schools, only 14% of modern oaths prohibit euthanasia, 11% hold covenant with a deity, 8% swear against abortion, and 3% forbid sexual contact with patients, which are all held sacred in the original oath (Tyson). Clearly one would question whether or not the oath is valid. However, one phrase most common among all oaths taken by doctors is to "first do no harm."
Doctors have an obligation to help, not hurt, their patients. Doctors are typically well respected individuals whom many go to in their time of need. If doctors had the ability to end a patients life, many would grow distrustful of them and no longer seek out their profession help. Especially when it came to their sick and dying children, which is understandably a more serious and emotional matter. If doctors were able to take someone's life, their liability would increase causing insurance premiums to rise and could possibly lead to less people deciding to become doctors. Many feel that legalizing euthanasia would also become a slippery slope.
If one were allowed to voluntarily request PAS, what about those who are no longer in a position to make that request? Those who oppose PAS feel that it might lead to the euthanizing of the chronically ill, disabled and mentally ill patients whose quality of life appears to be extremely low, but do not have the ability to choose for themselves what they want. If only terminally ill patients are able to request PAS, then physicians would need to be able to predict with a fair amount of certainty how long a patient has to live. However, a 1999 study of Oregon physicians found that 27% of doctors who had received a request to prescribe lethal medications for a terminally ill patient, could not predict whether a patient had a life expectancy of 6 months or less (Bryant 426; Padilla 234). Many who oppose PAS often times are Christians who have a Biblical prospective on life.
The Bible has principles that apply when someone is faced with the decision of euthanasia. The Bible shows that God views human life as sacred. In his commandments to the nation of Israel, God stated that "You must not murder." (New World translation, Ex. 20:13) Fortunately, the Bible also offers a definition of what murder is, "If the homicide sets upon a man openly of malice aforethought or aims a missile at him of set purpose and he dies, . . . then the assailant must be put to death; he is a murderer." (The New English Bible, Num 35:20) Active euthanasia involves a premeditated act of ending someone's life, typically with the use of a "missile" in the form of a bullet or pills. Would not this qualify as murder according to the biblical prospective? (What's the Bibles View; Padilla 233)
The Bible also requires that Christians "be in subjection to the superior authorities" with which we live under as long as it doesn't go against God's laws. (New World Translation, Rom 13:1) Euthanasia and PAS is illegal in 47 states. Participating in such a practice would no doubt be in violation of the law and result in criminal charges against all parties involved. Fear of repercussions should not be our only motivating factor. The Bible commands that Christians "hold a good conscience." (1 Pet 3:16) Our desire to conform our lives to Bible principles, as well as to please God and have a clean conscious, should never allow us to resort to active forms of euthanasia (What's the Bibles View).What about the Bible's view of passive forms of euthanasia?
The Bible does not require one to prolong life in the event they were diagnosed with a terminal illness. Often times the best doctors can do is stretch out the dying process by prolonging life through the use of medicines and machines. If a patient is suffering in a lot of pain, lengthening the process would only make that suffering worse. Medical treatments are often expensive and the burden it could cause on the patient and family may be more then one might choose. Allowing death to take its course uninhibited would not violate any laws of God. The Scriptures do not require a person to lengthen the process of dying when it is already underway (What's the Bibles View). Every circumstance is different and the details should be weighed out cautiously when faced with end of life decisions.
One can only imagine the range of emotions some might deal with when their life is coming to an end. The Bible offers a positive hope for the future that may help alleviate some of stress when one is faced with end of life decisions. Often times ones consider positive euthanasia when they feel they have no more hope for the future or relief of their pain. The Bible speaks of a time when sickness and death will disappear from the earth. "Death will be no more, neither will morning nor outcry nor pain be anymore." (Rev 21:4) Clinging to such positive hope can help strengthen a persons faith, and help them make good decisions when dealing with this situation in their life.
Whether or not one is for or against euthanasia is a personal decision everyone must make for themselves. All circumstances are different, and everyone deals with this kind of situation differently. No one has the right to judge another for the decisions they make. God created all mankind with the gift of free will, and we must all choose for ourselves what decisions we will make in life. "Choose for yourselves today whom you will serve" (Josh 24:15) If we as a nation believe in our own personal freedoms, then we certainly should support the idea of allowing people to choose for themselves whether or not they support euthanasia. If this idea is something detestable to someone, then they should not participate in it. Often times circumstances in our lives influence the decisions we make. As long as one stays true to himself and their own moral code, then they can be sleep soundly at night.
