Euthanasia The Right to Die

Euthanasia: The Right to Die











College Writing

11/8/93



Euthanasia: The Right to Die

Thesis: Euthanasia should be legalized so, if we ever have a
loved one that is suffering and death is certain,
that we have the choice to ease their pain if they
want.

I. Introduction

A. Examples showing why euthanasia is
receiving national attention.

B. A summary of reasons offered by those opposed
to euthanasia is given.

C. A summary of reasons offered by those in favor
of euthanasia is given.

D. Transition into my argument.

II. Body

A. A person has the right to die with dignity.

B. Everything should not be done to prolong life
if the patient does not want it.

C. Doctors are not always responsible to do
everything they can to save somebody.

D. Refute the argument that euthanasia is
unethical.

III. Conclusion

A. Thoughts on freedom people have.

B. A quote to end with.

"A dying man needs to die, as a sleepy man needs to
sleep, and there comes a time when it is wrong, as well
as useless to resist."
-Steward Alsop, Stay of Execution


Euthanasia has become an issue of increasing attention
because of Dr. Jack Kevorkian's assisted suicides. As of
October 21 Kevorkian has assisted in nineteen suicides.
Because of the increasing number of suicides in Michigan,
Gov. Engler signed an anti-suicide law in late February that
made doctor-assisted suicides a felony. During the 21-month
trial period of the new law anyone assisting in a suicide
can be sentenced to up to four years in prison and fined
more than $2,000 (Reuters, 1993).
With the passing of this law I thought that most people
would be against the right-to-die, not so. In a poll cited
in a 1991 issue of USA Today eighty percent of Americans
think sometimes there are circumstances when a patient
should be allowed to die, compared to only fifteen percent
think doctors and nurses should always do everything
possible to save a person's life. It also showed that eight
in ten adults approve of state laws that allow medical care
for the terminally ill to be removed or withheld, if that is
what the patient "wishes", whereas only thirteen percent
disapproved of the laws. Also seventy percent think the
family should be allowed to make the decision about
treatment on behalf of the patient, while another five
percent think this is suitable only in some cases (Colasnto,
1991, p. 62).
The results on mercy killing surprised me even more.
Seventy percent think it is justified at least sometimes for
a person to kill his or her spouse, if he or she is
suffering terrible pain caused by a terminal illness. Even
suicide is starting to be accepted. About half the public
think a "moral right" to suicide exists if a person has an
incurable disease or is suffering great pain with no hope of
recovering(Colasnto, 1991, p. 63).
About half of those with living parents think their
mothers and fathers would want medical treatment stopped if
they were suffering a great deal of pain in a terminal
disease or if they became totally dependant on a family
member, and forty percent of their parents would want
medical treatment stopped if daily activities became a
burden(Colasnto,1991, p. 63).
With the continuous coverage of Dr. Kevorkian the views
of people will continue to change. Euthanasia will continue
to become more of an issue.
As with any issue, each viewpoint is supported by many
reasons. Those who oppose euthanasia argue that the medical
profession must always be on the side of "preserving life"
(Schofield, 1988, p. 24). Another reason is euthanasia will
lead to the "devaluation of life" (Low, 1989, p. 37). Also
they think it will force doctors and family members to
"judge the value of a patient's life". Critics also say
that acceptance will spread from the terminally ill to the
less serious ill, the handicapped, or the mentally retarded.
(Russ, 1989, p. 117)
One reason that just about everyone who favors
euthanasia agrees with is that a person has the right to a
death with dignity. Another reason is a person should be
allowed a "natural death" instead of a prolonged death with
medical equipment(Battin, 1985, p. 19). Still another reason
is that doctors are supposed to ease the pain of people not
prolong it (Battin, 1989, p. 19).
Death is one of the few things that all people have in
common. This means that there is a chance for anyone to
face the decision of letting someone go. Euthanasia should
be legalized so people will only have to think about the
difficult decision of the present and not about the
consequences of the future.
One of the base reasons people for euthanasia give is,
a person has the right to die with dignity. People should
be allowed to control their own deaths. Why should a
patient be forced to live if they think their present
standard of life has "degenerated to the point of
meaningless", when doctors can no longer help, and perhaps
the pain has become unbearable? At this point, if the
person is of sound mind, they should have the choice to
continue on or to peacefully die, even if they need
assistance in doing so(Larue, 1988, p. 153).
If the person is not able to make this decision there
should be a few options, a living will, the family's choice,
and the doctor's choice. A living will should be allowed to
control the outcome if the person is unable to. If there is
no living will the family, consulting with a qualified
physician, should be allowed to decide for the patient. The
one situation that is most controversial is a patient with
no family or no family member qualified to make the
decision. Some think the doctor should be able to make the
decision for the patient.
I believe that the doctor should be allowed to decide
if the patient has reached the point of only getting worse
and in considerable pain. In any of these situations a
doctor should be at least an advisor, they are the ones with
the medical knowledge, and know the present condition of the
patient and the alternatives. "In any humane or humanistic
view of what is good, it is morally wrong to compel
hopelessly suffering or irreversible debilitated patients to
stay alive when death is freely elected" (Larue, 1988, p.
151).
In some cases, like terminal illness, "death is often
better than dyeing", mainly due to the way that the person
will die. They may have to go thorough a long period of pain
and suffering. Ask yourself which you would choose, early or
prolonged death (Larue, 1988, p. 153). Even if you do not
think that you would end your life or another's life should
personal views decide that it is not the right thing for
another to do. Does any person have the right to control
the choices of others?
Another argument is that not all the should everything
be done to preserve a life. The natural balance of life and
death has been disturbed by the advances of technology. No
longer does a person die when they are supposed to; life-
support now prevents that. Opponents say doctors should not
play God by killing patients ,but do they realize that by
prolonging death the medical profession is doing exactly
that? Christian Barnard, at the World Euthanasia
Conference, was quoted as saying, "I believe often that
death is good medical treatment because it can achieve what
all the medical advances and technology cannot achieve
today. and that is stop the suffering of the patient"
(Battin, 1987, p. 21).
A differant version of the same argument is, doctors
are not always responsible to do everything they can to save
somebody. If a doctor's duty is to ease the pain of his
patients, then why should this exclude the possibility of
letting them die? If a patient has a terminal illness and
is in great pain and the patient thinks they would rather
die now than continue living the with the pain, the doctor
should be allowed to help. What about a person who is in a
vegetative state for a prolonged period of time with no hope
of recovery, should the doctor do everything? Howard Caplan
gives an example of this.
I have on my census a man in his early 40s, left an
aphasic triplegic by a motorcycle accident when he was
19. For nearly a quarter of a century, while most of us
were working, raising children, reading, and otherwise
going about our lives, he's been vegetating. His
biographical life ended with the crash. He can only
articulate - only make sounds to convey that he's
hungry or wet. If he were to become acutely ill, I
would prefer not to try saving him. I'd want to let
pneumonia end it for him" (1987, p. 92).
I believe that a doctor should do what he can up to a point.
If a person is at the point where death is a blessing a
doctor should not be forced to save a person if they go into
cardiac arrest. Also it might be the patients decision for
nothing to be done, in this case the doctor should do as
instructed.
Is euthanasia unethical? That is what the opposition
argues. They preach that doctors too often play God on the
operating tables and in the recovery rooms and doctors must
always be on the side of life (Battin, 1987, p. 24). They
say, "Life is to be preserved and suffering was to be
alleviated", but in fact the American Medical Association
said, "Physicians dedicate their lives to the alleviation of
suffering, to the enhancement and prolongation of life, and
the destinies of humanity". They clearly state the
"alleviation of suffering" before "the enhancement and
prolongation of life". So if the reduction of pain would
mean letting the person pass on, why would that be wrong and
unethical? They also claim euthanasia is a "breach of the
laws of humanity", what about the laws of nature? These
laws were established long before mankind. Humanity
breached the laws of nature, long before the "laws of
humanity" were broken, with advances like respirators.
People are the ones upsetting the balance of nature when
they try to keep persons alive who are supposed to die. The
planet has survived for a long time without the laws of
humanity, so what makes them right? (Schofield, 1988, p. 26)
Opponents also claim that euthanasia is against God,
therefore it is unethical. Yet passive euthanasia, or
refraining from doing anything to keep the patient alive,
has been in practice since four centuries before Christ; and
in the centuries that followed neither the Christians nor
the Jews significantly changed this basic idea. It was
killing they were opposed to. Also in 1958 Pope Pius XII
emphasized that we may 'allow the patient who is virtually
already dead to pass away in peace' (Rachels, 1986, p. 43).
How can anybody say mercy is against God? to me it would
seem that God would want people to die in peace and without
pain. If anything is against God it is trying to live
longer than God had intended you to.
The United States was founded because people wanted to
be free. Americans have fought for freedom ever since. If
euthanasia is made illegal it will take away one of the
founding freedoms, the freedom of choice, the freedom for a
person to choose a death with dignity and free of pain and
suffering for themselves and their families. As Seneca
quoted in Bolander writes, "A punishment to some, to some a
gift, and to many a favor"(1984).


References
Battin, M. (1987). Euthanasia: the time is now. In Bernards,
N. (Ed). (1989). Euthanasia: opposing viewpoints.
Greenhaven Press, Inc.
Bernards, N. (Ed). (1989). Euthanasia: opposing viewpoints.
Greenhaven Press, Inc.
Bolander, D. (1987). Instant quotation dictionary. Little
Falls: Career Publishing, Inc.
Caplan, H. (1987). It's time we helped patients die. In
Bernards, N. (Ed). (1989). Euthanasia: opposing
viewpoints. Greenhaven Press, Inc.
Colesanto, D. (1991, May). The right-to-die controversy.
USA Today. pp. 62-63.
Larue, G. (1988). Euthanasia. In Bernards, N. (Ed). (1989).
Euthanasia: opposing viewpoints. Greenhaven Press, Inc.
Low, C. (1988). A deadly serious dilemma: evaluating the
right to die. In Bernards, N. (Ed). (1989). Euthanasia:
opposing viewpoints. Greenhaven Press, Inc.
McCuen, G. & Boucher, T. (1985). Terminating life. Hudson:
Gary E. McCuen Publication, Inc.
Michigan governor signs anti-suicide law. (1993, February
25). Ruters.
Rachels, J. (1986). The end of life: euthanasia and
morality. In Bernards, N. (Ed). (1989). Euthanasia:
opposing viewpoints. Greenhaven Press, Inc. Russ, S.
(1988). Care of the older person: the ethical challenge
of american medicine. In Bernards, N. (Ed). (1989).
Euthanasia: opposing viewpoints. Greenhaven Press, Inc.
Schofield, J. (1988). Care of the older person: the ethical
challenge to american medicine. In Bernards, N. (Ed).
(1989). Euthanasia: opposing viewpoints. Greenhaven
Press, Inc.