Euthanasia

Euthanasia: The Good, Bad and the Indifferent
Gina Green
HCA322
August 1, 2011
Instructor Michael Mileski

Euthanasia, also known as mercy killing, remains to be a highly controversial topic. Who has the power to determine when life comes to an end and when life actually begins? Ethicists, medical experts and law-makers have struggled with this topic for some time; trying to define what is ethical and what is not-what is punishable by law and what is permissible. Euthanasia, in some circumstances, is both justified and moral; no matter the gender, race, religious background, or social status, and every adult human being deserves to die with dignity and be cared for with compassion and excellence until the very end-whenever that time may come.
Euthanasia is defined as intentionally causing the death of a person with the motive being to benefit that person or protect him or her from further suffering (Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide, 2009). The two forms of euthanasia are active and passive; both of which maintain the same end result-death. Generally the more accepted form of euthanasia is passive euthanasia. This form of euthanasia is more the act of “letting nature take its’ course”. Passive euthanasia occurs when life-saving treatment (such as a respirator) is withdrawn or withheld. Active euthanasia, on the other hand, is commonly understood to be the intentional commission of an act, such as giving a patient a lethal drug that results in death (Pozgar, 2010, p.103).
When an individual is terminally ill, death is inevitable and pain and suffering becomes part of their everyday life, euthanasia may be the best option. As a respiratory therapist, I have withdrawn life-support from many patients; therefore, I have taken part in passive euthanasia. There were times when removing the respirator was difficult, but no patient whom I have withdrawn support from, would have been better off being kept alive via machine, in my opinion. Each and every human being should have the right to die with dignity and in peace. One should not have to suffer, remain in pain or stay alive in an incompetent, vegetative state because society cannot exactly agree upon when to initiate life-saving treatment, when to continue treatment, and when and who should terminate such treatment. Do I feel a 92-year-old African American should be allowed to die with no resuscitative efforts if that is what his wishes are? Do I feel a 40-year-old mother of four suffering with Stage V metastatic breast cancer has the right to refuse all treatment, except comfort measures, in hopes of a natural death? Do I feel a 65-year-old Hispanic male dying from a terminal illness that causes him physical and emotional pain beyond relief should have the option of ending his life with the aid of his physician? The answer to all of these questions is yes. Life is a gift, and a precious one at that, but it is also a gift of uncertainty wrapped in many shades of grey. We don’t always know what the right answer is or which step to take next-especially when it comes to end-of-life issues. There comes a time when continued attempts to cure are not compassionate, wise or medically sound. All interventions should then be directed towards alleviating pain and other symptoms; as well as to provide emotional and spiritual support for the both the patient and their loved ones, as they so desire (Marker & Hamlon, 2010). This should apply to every individual no matter their cultural background, social status, age or gender.
Some believe that “disadvantaged populations would be disproportionately represented among patients who chose assisted suicide.” Some also feel that “assisted suicide and euthanasia will be practiced through the prism of social inequality and prejudice that characterized the delivery of services in all segments of society, including health care. Those who will be most vulnerable to abuse, error or indifference are the poor, minorities, and those who are least educated and least empowered (Euthanasia, 2011).” I do not believe the poor, uneducated or the elderly would be mistreated or misrepresented when it comes to assisted suicide or euthanasia. I feel anybody could very well be vulnerable to abuse, error or indifference-not just these certain groups of individuals. Furthermore, abuse, error and indifference can and does occur in the medical field where assisted suicide and euthanasia are prohibited; how would allowing euthanasia and assisted suicide to take place change that aspect of medical care-it wouldn’t Having a better option for that 92-year-old who does not want mechanical ventilation and a feeding and hydration tube is not a form of abuse; it is a way of letting that individual die in peace and fulfill their wishes. Allowing a terminally ill patient to take a lethal dose of medication is not the easier way out; it is simply an option that can allow an individual to die with less pain and suffering, and in their own time. We, as health care professionals, lawmakers and loved-ones, should not keep another human being alive if death is inevitable.
The minorities and the poor have had trouble maintaining access to quality healthcare for some time now. For many, emergency rooms become their place of primary care and, most often, those who remain uninsured will wait longer and longer to seek treatment; waiting until the pain is just not tolerable any longer. Does this mean their life is any less valuable than someone who can afford health coverage and regular check-ups? Their life is absolutely not any less valuable. I don’t feel that if assisted suicide or euthanasia is legalized across the United States, that minorities, the poor and the uneducated will be lining up to die. If these individuals cannot afford means to adequate medical care, who is to say that they would have access to treatment that would end their pain and suffering? “The argument that disadvantaged persons will receive more medical services than the remainder of the population in one, and only one area, assisted suicide, is ludicrous on its face (Euthanasia, 2011).” And if these certain individuals do choose assisted suicide as a last resort to end the pain and suffering caused by terminal illness, the decision to do so should be accepted by society. The elderly, the poor, the minorities and the uneducated still possess the same rights as any other human being to decide what is and what is not to be done to his or her own body-life or death included. It is just as important to protect life as it is to allow a life to end when death is near. If euthanasia or assisted suicide is ever legalized across the U.S., as health care professionals, it is our responsibility to educate the uneducated, remove prejudices in regards to the poor and the minorities, and aid in empowering those who are the least empowered. We should do this in hopes that the legalization of these two aspects in health care would create no more abuse; also no more error or indifference than what was already present prior to the change.
In the state of South Carolina, physician-assisted suicide is far from legal. The laws in South Carolina concerning physician-assisted suicide are as follows: “It is unlawful for a person to assist another person in committing suicide. A person assists another person in committing suicide if the person by force or duress intentionally causes the other person to commit or attempt to commit suicide, has knowledge that the other person intends to commit or attempt to commit suicide and intentionally, provides the physical means by which the other person commits or attempts to commit suicide and/or participates in a physical act by which the other person commits or attempts to commit suicide. None of the following may be construed to violate subsection B in the laws concerning physician-assisted suicide. These are to include: the withholding or withdrawing of a life sustaining procedure or compliance with any other state or federal law authorizing withdrawal or refusal of medical treatments or procedures, the administering, prescribing, or dispensing of medications or procedures, by or at the direction of a licensed health care professional, for the purpose of alleviating another person's pain or discomfort, even if the medication or procedure may increase the risk of death, as long as the medication or procedure is not also intentionally administered, prescribed, or dispensed for the purpose of causing death, or the purpose of assisting in causing death, for any reason; or the administering, prescribing, or dispensing of medications or procedures to a patient diagnosed with a medical condition that includes an element of suicidal ideation, even if the medication or procedure may increase the risk of death, as long as the medication or procedure is not also intentionally administered, prescribed, or dispensed for the purpose of causing death, or the purpose of assisting in causing death, for any reason (Euthanasia, 2011). The laws pertaining to physician-assisted suicide in South Carolina are similar to those laws in many other states across the U.S. If more individuals had living wills, their wishes would be known in regards to the right-to-die issues; and what treatment and procedures they would or would not want if they became incompetent or in a vegetative state. Uniformity with regard to the legal instruments available for demonstrating what a patient wants should be a common goal of legislators, courts and the medical professionals (Pozgar, 2010, p.110-11). Living wills are crucial in fulfilling each individual’s exact wishes when end-of-life issues arise.
Every situation is different in terms of end-of-life decisions; and every human being of adult years has a right to determine what shall be done to his own body (Pozgar, 2010, p.104). I do not believe that a physician has the right to suffocate a patient to end their life or administer a medication that will ultimately cause death without the consent of the patient. Euthanasia, in some circumstances, is both justified and moral; no matter the gender, race, religious background, or social status, and every adult human being deserves to die with dignity and be cared for with compassion and excellence until the very end-whenever that time may come. Euthanasia, in the form of withholding or withdrawing life-support and nutrition and feeding tubes to allow natural death; as well as, prescribing a patient a lethal dose of medication to end pain and suffering in the face of a terminal illness, is both moral and justified. End-of-life issues are never easy; but they are, in fact, a reality. Fulfilling an individual’s wishes in regards to their medical care should always be our goal as health care professionals and physicians. Dying with dignity should not be an option, but instead, a right. Society must learn to deal effectively with end-of-life issues. Thus far, progress is slow and inadequate (Pozgar, 2010, p.113). Our patients are our purpose; providing compassion in the face of death is our responsibility.

Reference Page
Euthanasia. (July 2011). Retrieved from http://www.euthanasia.procon.org.
Marker, R. & Hamlon, K. (2010). Euthanasia and Assisted-Suicide: Frequently Asked Questions. Retrieved from http://patientsrightscouncil.org/site/frequently-asked-questions/.
Pozgar, G. (2010). Legal and Ethical Issues for Health Professionals. Sudbury, MA: Jones and Bartlett Publishers.