Pros And Cons Of Active Euthanasia

The Merriam-Webster Dictionary of 2004 defines euthanasia as the act or practice of ending the life of an individual suffering from terminal illness or an incurable condition as by lethal injection or the suspension of extraordinary medical treatment. But how could anyone pick a side on this topic? You either think it is all right or not right at all. The sides of this debate are equally divided, and both make good points that come with it.
In her book, Euthanasia, Sunni Bloyd defines euthanasia as "the taking of a human life, either one's own or that of another person. The person must be suffering from a disease or condition from which they are not expected to recover. The action must be deliberate and intentional." In active euthanasia,
a doctor, family member, or friend causes death. Assisted suicide is when physician gives a patient a prescription that will cause death and instructs the patient on dosages (19).
Patient consent is also vital when discussing euthanasia. Voluntary euthanasia refers to euthanasia that is performed with the patient's consent. Involuntary euthanasia is when euthanasia is performed even though the patient withholds consent. The decision is made by some outside group or the family (Bloyd). Oregon's law permits physicians prescribe lethal overdoses to terminally ill patients. To request a prescription for medication, the patient must be 18 years or older, a resident of Oregon and diagnosed with a terminal illness that will lead to death within six months. The patient must make two oral requests to their physician separated by at least 15 days. The attending physician and a consulting physician must confirm the diagnosis and prognosis. If one of those physicians determines that the patient might not be rational, the patient has to be referred for a psychological examination. The physician must inform the patient of alternatives including palliative care, hospice, and pain management options (Oregon Physicians).
There are problems with physician compliance in the state of Oregon.
According to Melinda Lee, M.D. in an article for the New England Journal of Medicine, "1375 (Oregon) physicians (50%) were not confident that they could predict that a patient had less than six months to live. Moreover, 761 (28%) indicated that they were not confident they could recognize depression in a patient who requested a prescription for a lethal dose of medication" (Marker). The Journal of the American Medical Association also did a survey regarding physicians' attitudes. A questionnaire was mailed in February 1999 to Oregon physicians eligible to prescribe under the Death with Dignity Oregon act. Of the 3981 physicians, 2461 (66%) returned the questionnaire. Only 73 physicians indicated that they were willing to write a lethal prescription. Of those, 27% were not confident they could determine whether or not a patient had less than six months to live (Oregon Physicians). Since the law has been passed in Oregon, an HMO has actually had to solicit doctors willing to give a lethal overdose. Kaiser Permanente had to resort to sending out a memo to 829 physicians asking them to submit their name to a Kaiser administrator if they were willing to give a lethal overdose to patients. The memo complained that the Ethics Service could not find a physician to give deadly drugs to a patient who was suffering and dying for three weeks (HMO Seeks). One has to wonder why the patient was not adequately
treated for three weeks and what the HMO plans to do in the future to improve its pain treatment programs. Some people have said that cost savings could be a motivating factor behind HMO's support for assisted suicide.
Doctors are caught between their own moral and ethical convictions and what is considered legal. Many medical associations are against euthanasia and physician assisted suicide. The British Medical Association opposes legalization of euthanasia. The American Nurses Association states, "we must increase our efforts to provide palliative care to those who are dying so that assisted suicide does not become the sought after alternative." The World Medical Association is quoted as saying, "Physician- assisted suicide, like euthanasia is unethical and must be condemned by the medical profession. Finally, the American Medical Association states, "Physician-assisted suicide is fundamentally incompatible with the physician's role as healer, it would be difficult or impossible to control and would pose serious societal risks" (Physician Assisted).
Economics unfortunately needs to be discussed when talking about euthanasia.
In recent years, many of us have witnessed the emphasis placed on insurance companies trying to contain cost. Euthanasia and assisted suicide could certainly become an area in which society will try to save costs. Drugs for assisted suicide cost about $45 compared to the $40,000(or more) to provide suicidal patient with proper care (Marker). In the U.S., millions of people have no insurance. For those people who have no insurance, euthanasia or assisted suicide might be chosen as it represents an affordable option. They might not want to leave their family with astronomical medical bills after their death. Many people might not have thought of the correlation between assisted suicide and the strain in healthcare budgets. It is chilling to think of the
consequences.
After reading all these articles and website materials I definitely do think that euthanasia is just plain wrong. Legalizing euthanasia could lead to abuses. Killing terminally ill patients who ask for it is a dangerous step. Once you accept the principle of the right to die, what stops you from extending it to the non-terminally ill? What if you had a quadriplegic athlete, an Alzheimer's disease patient, or just someone suffering from a physical or emotional pain? And what happens when people like this do not request lethal injections, but their families do? Are we to euthanize them to?