Euthanasia Suicide And Suicide Summary

Professor Hecklinger: The purpose of this essay was to show my view on an argument that I stand behind and show you how I am able to gather information, prove my point and analyze the topic. What was interesting about this writing process was how I started from little knowledge about my topic into writing an entire paper on it. This writing process took a lot more time, effort, research, and even critical thinking.
What I mean by thinking is trying to analyze and describe my argument in the essay and trying not to be too repetitive. Rewording the same point was difficult because I felt that every argument in a research paper has the same feel and point. What was also difficult was trying to structure this essay. I wasn’t sure where to
put the pros and cons because I didn’t want to make the reader question my point to the essay. I also wasn’t sure if the little story in the beginning is aloud to be in a research paper. I wanted to open this paper with a little background information about the patients I keep talking about and try make the reader feel for the character.
For the strengths of this paper, I think I was able to make my points clear in my essay. I provided a lot of information so the reader would learn and understand the topic. And lastly, I used a lot of the feedback from the peer review and writing tutor. I took others peoples questions and remarks to thought and revised my essay and I tried to fix the same mistakes I was making in my last papers. When reading this essay I would like to know if I fixed my errors, made my point, agree or disagree with my theses and if it’s interesting at all.

Thank You, Mr. Johnson is a 32 year old, married resident from New York, living day by day with terminal cancer. He lives with chronic pain and is psychologically run down from the depression he endures every living moment. He has known that he has had terminal cancer for four years now and has come to the conclusion he does not want to live the remainder of his life the way he is living now. His physicians try to convince him that there may be a solution to relieve the chronic pain but his hopes have diminished. Mr. Johnson has seen multiple therapists to deal with his depression but he is up to the point where he feels, the only way to happiness is by ending his life. His wife has been his support and all she wants is for him to be happy. Mr. Johnson has done some research and found a story similar to his own life where he learned about the medical method of termination called euthanasia. The more research he was able to gather, he felt that euthanasia was the way to happiness. The only thing stopping him was the law that prohibits a timely intended death requested by the patient. The story above is not a real case, but when researching stories about people leaning towards the decision of euthanasia, it was astonishing to see that there are truly many variations that are similar to Mr.
Johnson’s case. Many people ask why he wouldn’t commit suicide. The answer is because people would rather die with respect from the people around them. Suicide is commonly referred to as a selfish and irresponsible act by killing oneself. Where as, euthanasia is an intentional act of terminating ones life in response to their request, due to their terminal illness. Most Americans can agree that, if they had the choice, they would rather die quickly, pain- free, and with dignity. But, when it comes to the topic of euthanasia, society places it under one of the most controversial social issues today due to religious and ethical arguments between the state and its residents. Even though there are heated debates that have occurred and are still influential today, there is a strong argument to why Americans with terminally cancer should have the right to stand behind their human right of freedom of choice and choose euthanasia as a form of termination to end physical suffering, emotional distress, and die peacefully with
respect. Euthanasia is a course of action that provides a gentle and peaceful death for people who have been suffering from a terminal illness or disease.
It began in the early Ancient Greek and Roman time period and the word originated from the Greek meaning “Well Death” and “Easy Death.”(Vaknin 1). During ancient times, they gave terminally ill civilians a vile of poison to end suffering and inflict an easy death. But as time continued, people’s morals, religion and ethical input and opinions have caused the definition of one word to have many variations. The term euthanasia has been broken down into Active euthanasia and Passive euthanasia. Active euthanasia is defined as intentionally terminating an individual’s life by directly intervening to end their pain and suffering. This is also known as Physician-assisted suicide. Active euthanasia is performed by a physician prescribing a lethal mixture of prescription drugs, a supply of carbon monoxide gas or by lethal injection. Passive euthanasia is defined as intentionally ending one’s life by altering or withholding life prolonging measures and/or resources from the suffering patient. (Vaknin 1). This form of euthanasia is done by removing life-support equipment, stopping medications, food, hydration, medical procedures and/ or not resuscitating life when the patient’s heart has stopped. (Virani, Yadav
2). There are laws prohibiting euthanasia around the world, but euthanasia is legal in countries like Belgium, Canada, Finland, France, Norway, Germany, and Sweden. These countries laws have been initiated for their society’s interest and these countries felt that “suicide and euthanasia are such individual acts of freedom and free will that they assume there are no legal prohibitions.” (Euthanasia ProCon). In other words, these countries feel that euthanasia is constitutional if the patient has a terminal illness or disease, in chronic pain and requests euthanasia. They believe it’s the individual’s choice, and they have the right to die peacefully. Since it is legal in many countries for a legitimate reason, many US citizens and even physicians have made efforts to make this issue aware to the public and tried to convince society that terminally ill patients should have the right to die with ease and dignity. One of those physicians who is known for being a euthanasia activist in the United States was Jack Kevorkian. Also known as “Dr. Death.”(Vaknin 8). He brought attention to the American society that terminal patients have the right to die pain-free by participating in Physician-assisted suicide. He spent his career researching, debating and publically performing the act of euthanasia for Americans, so society would understand why terminally ill patients should have the right to have euthanasia as a way to die. Kevorkian assisted in 131 deaths within the years of 1989 and 1998 by euthanatizing his patients with lethal injection machine, which he called “Thanatron” or by assisting death by providing a carbon monoxide mask, which he called “Mercitron.” If patients chose to use the Thanatron, Dr. Kevorkian assisted by setting up the machine, but the patient had total control of the button that released the lethal substance. Trying to fulfill his patients requests and advocating the good of physician- assisted suicide, the state of Michigan revoked his medical license, was charged for second degree murder and second degree homicide, went to trial seven times, and given a 10-25 year sentence without parole. (para. 8). Even though his efforts brought him to prison, Kevorkian stood behind his argument and responded to Americans, “My aim in helping the patient was not to cause death. My aim was to end suffering. It’s got to be decriminalized.” Jack Kevorkian is one of the most influential leaders advocating the social acceptance and legalization of euthanasia. His efforts have impacted societies view on euthanasia and provided a strong argument for why euthanasia should be legalized in the United States for the sake of these suffering patients. His practice have shown Americans these patients made the decision on their own to choose euthanasia because all they wanted was to be free from suffering and be in a better place. Branching from Kevorkian’s efforts, many states fought for what they believed was ethical. Currently today there are no federal laws prohibiting the act of euthanasia, but 47 states prohibit the act of euthanasia under homicide laws. It is a criminal offense and federal law to intentionally take the life of a human being. 43 states have specific laws prohibiting all assisted suicide and four states have no specific laws. There are three states that legalized Physician assisted suicide, Washington, Oregon, and Montana. These three states were all states that took part in the “Right to Die” movement, which began in the Netherlands and adopted into the United States in 1906. (Baird, Rosenbaum 46). This movement was created in the Netherlands by citizens who believed terminally ill patients were entitled to euthanasia as a way of death. The patients needed these citizens to raise their voice in behalf of them, and that is what they did. Activist advocated and debated the issue to fight for justice for these patients. Washington, Oregon and Montana have a law that protects patients and doctors from the criminal offenses connected with euthanasia. Oregon was the first state to legalize Physician-assisted suicide in 1994 under the Death with Dignity Act with 51.3% in favor vote. This law protects the patient’s decision to end their life and protects physicians from and homicide laws and the liability of their death. On November 1997, Oregon’s state legislature wanted to repeal this law but was rejected by 60 % of voters. Then in January 17, 2006, the law was challenged again by the George W. Bush administration and taken to the Supreme Court and won in favor of keeping active euthanasia legal by a 6-3 vote. Residents of Oregon who are diagnosed as a terminally ill patient by a registered physician can request euthanasia by lethal injection or prescription of a lethal dosage of medication. From the day the patient requests euthanasia, they can get approval with in 6 months of request and have a timely death. But restrictions do apply. Their requests must be confirmed by two witnesses that are not biologically related to the patient, healthcare facility caring and/or funding the patient, or have any means to the patient’s assets. Secondly, the patient must also be approved from any mental conditions that can alter their judgment. Finally, after a minimum of 15 days from the patient’s request, the patient must request for a physician- assisted suicide again orally, before a prescription can be written. But any physician or pharmacist, do have the right refuse to participate. According to the Washington Secretary of State, Washington States approval of the Death with Dignity Act was confirmed on November 4, 2008 by a 57.82% in favor vote. Washington State has the same law and restrictions as Oregon, but the only difference is when the patient is ingesting the lethal dose of prescribed medication, they must be unassisted when doing so. Montana’s approval of the Death with Dignity act was ratified less than three years ago, on December 31, 2009 in conclusion to the Baxter vs. Montana Supreme Court case. Robert Baxter was a 76-year-old man terminally ill from Lymphocytic Leukemia fighting for approval for an intended timely death. He won his case with a 4-3 vote. The Supreme Court concluded that the “Fundamental right for terminally ill patients to die with dignity and physician-assisted suicide is not against public policy for residents in Montana” which therefore kept active euthanasia legal in the state of Montana. (Misbin 68). These states may have reached bumps in the road to decriminalizing euthanasia in their state, but they continued to fight for justice and the results showed that Americans do sympathize for these patients and want them to have the easy, pain-free death they wish to desire. The reason why only three states legalizing a form of euthanasia is due to peoples belief that an intended timely death is not the answer to their problem. One of the main reasons why people are against euthanasia and is a social issue is due to differing religious beliefs. Similarly to the debate about pro life and abortion, arguments are continuous and there is no right decision due to people’s morals and beliefs. The Judio-Christian tradition is strongly opposed to the act of euthanasia. These followers believe that euthanasia goes against their values by destroying god’s creation and going against their belief in hope and faith. People who follow this religious tradition strongly believe that death will come when god plans it. Another reason why people go against euthanasia is the potential chaos it will bring to society. According to Baird and Rosenbaum, they discussed that “Legalizing euthanasia will cause the slippery slope effect. It’s believed that once allowing people to choose an intended timely death, it will lead to unacceptable consequences and corruption within the society”. (32). People can abuse this medical method and encourage them to reduce the quality of life and to rid financial burdens accumulated from health care costs on top of regular finances. Also, people who are entitled to assets from the patient can sway the patients decision towards euthanasia, so they can retrieve it at an earlier time. Lastly, it is fact that not all deaths are painful and that there are alternatives available, such as controlled substances for pain like opiates. Discouragers argue that people who are in favor to legalize euthanasia, are just ignoring the importance of life. Though these arguments against euthanasia are plausible, euthanasia does provide a peaceful death for Americans who are terminally sick. Firstly, euthanasia will bring an end to suffering from the chronic, unbearable pain related to their illness and provide a peaceful and easy death. Secondly, it will provide relief from emotional distress. Instead of suffering and waiting until they die, patients can relax and actually enjoy the time they have left. If able, they can take part in activities they wish to take part in or even see people they wish to see for the last time to speak their final words. Thirdly, euthanasia can bring an end to the continuous financial build up. Intensive care hospital space, health care staff, and medication are all expenses accumulated for the patient and/or family to pay off. As these patients are hoping to pass away each day that elapses, the money that goes into health care costs can be utilized in other ways they believe is necessary. Lastly, euthanasia is another case dealing with the 14th amendment. Stated in the United States Constitution “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”(Bairde and Rosenbaum 97). In other words, the 14th amendment entitles Americans with the freedom of choice. That choice wanted by 70% of the 1,100 terminally ill patients surveyed in 2005, was the right to have euthanasia as a form of termination with out any legal discrepancies for the patient and/or physician. Euthanasia is a personal decision and helps fulfill what these ill patients want for themselves and overall a step towards total democracy in America. “This country reaches its full potential, a nation defined not by the past but by the moment.” (Stallard 165). The United States could continue to reach justice and democracy by continuing an effort. Even though many cases and bills have been ruled out or vetoed by authority, States should not standstill and ponder on past failed attempts and should continue to fight to reach “full potential” for these patients. Euthanasia is a medical practice that can give terminally ill patients what they want. Americans can agree that, if given the choice, they would rather die easily, pain-free and with dignity. But when it comes to legalizing the medical method for an intended termination of a terminally ill human patient to end their suffering, controversy stirs. With 47 states prohibiting all forms of euthanasia under homicide law regulations, protests and movement have developed throughout time advocating for and against the act. Some Americans argue that euthanasia is against ones religious beliefs and practices, will cause corruption within society regarding gradual financial buildup and people seeking their assets, and ignoring the quality and importance of the human life. But on the other hand, Euthanasia is a decision that is made solely by the individual to obtain what they believe they are entitled to. Terminally ill patients can stop suffering from the chronic physical pain and emotional distress, end life in a peaceful and respected manner, utilize money in other areas needed, and strengthen the fundamental right of freedom of choice. Activists like Jack Kevorkian and the states Washington, Oregon, and Montana all stood behind their pro-euthanasia arguments and the 14th and succeeded in the battle, allowing active euthanasia to be performed on terminally ill patients if requested. Three states aren’t enough. Terminally ill patients need to be given the individual right to request a euthanasia if they wish. Even though the federal homicide law prohibits intentional termination of another human’s life, euthanasia is a choice of death that is made on the sole interest of themselves. People need to be more aware of this issue and become more informed on the reasons why euthanasia is not a corrupt medical practice. Society needs to hear more life stories like Mr. Johnson’s to truly understand why people believe terminally ill patients should have the right to die with ease in the United States of America.

Work Cited

Baird, Robert M and Rosenbaum, Stuart E. Euthanasia: the moral issues. Buffalo: Prometheus Books, 1989. Print.

Stallard, Jim. “No Justice, No Foul.” Laughing Matters. Diogenes, Marvin. New York: Pearson Education Inc, 2009. Print.

Draper, Heather and Slowther, Anne. “Euthanasia and Medical Decisions Concerning the Ending of Life.” The British Medical Journal.(1999):0269-9702. Web. 4 April. 2012.

Knight, Rhona. “Euthanasia.” The British Journal of General Practice.(2006): 0960-1643. Web. 7 April. 2012.

Misbin, Robert I. Euthanasia: the good of the patient, the good of society. Maryland: University Public Group, 1992. Print.

Spring, Beth. Euthanasia: spiritual, medical & legal issues in terminal health care. Portland: Mulnomah Group, 1988. Print.

Stearman, Kaye. The Debate About Euthanasia. New York: Rosen Central, 2010. Print.

Vaknin, Sam. “Terminal Choices: Euthanasia, Suicide and the Right to Die.” Journal of Medical Ethics.(1997): 0306-6800. Web. 7 April. 2012.

Virani, Tarun and Yadav, Sachdev. “Euthanasia.” The Pharmaceutical Reviews.(2007): 1918-5561. Web. 4 April. 2012.

“Euthanasia ProCon.” Top 10 Pros & Cons: should euthanasia or physician assisted suicide be legal? n.d.Web. 8 April. 2012< http://www.procon.org/>