Good Death; Support for Euthanasia
Debra Greenstein
Brookdale Community College
Abstract
Euthanasia and physician assisted suicide is a world controversy and started when Dr. Jack Kevorkian invented the first known “suicide machine”. Euthanasia is currently legal in five states in America and several countries around the world. There is research done that supports the idea of euthanasia and physician assisted suicide in the medical field. Research also demonstrates that the general public, along with people who identify with a religion, support the idea of euthanasia and physician assisted suicide. People who reject this idea may say it goes against the Hippocratic Oath but if not implemented it causes harm to the patient which, ultimately, goes against the oath. Legality of euthanasia and physician assisted suicide may also be said to lead to other morally wrong ideas being permitted but that is just an assumption and one cannot base an argument off an assumption.
Euthanasia is the practice of ending the life of a person who is suffering greatly from a terminal disease or an incurable illness. A physician can dispense extraordinary medical treatment or lethal injection. The practice of euthanasia can date back all the way to the seventeenth century, but the first bill in the United States to recognize this practice was in 1906, in the state of Ohio. Although that bill was rejected, today, there are currently five states that have passed the “right to die” laws including: Oregon, Washington, Vermont, New Mexico, and Montana (Feldman, 2017). Throughout the world we see euthanasia and assisted suicide being legal, like in the Netherlands, Belgium, and Columbia to name a few countries (Lewis, 2015). Take Thomas for example, an 83 year old man who was suffering from the onset of dementia (Vink, 2016). When Thomas was younger he watched both his parents be taken away by this disease and vowed he would not let dementia do that to him (Vink, 2016). Thomas decided that he was going to kill himself before the dementia killed him, he did not want the dementia to take away his freedom in his life (Vink, 2016). He informed his family about his plan, his physician, his counsellor, and even his pastor (Vink, 2016). The night before Thomas was going to take his own life, all of his loved ones gathered to celebrate, the next morning he took his own life (Vink, 2016). This story took place in 2014 and it just one of many. Euthanasia is a huge controversy in the world today. Some may say that a person has the duty to live or that it goes against God to mercy kill, but, in reality, painful living is so much worse than good death and this is what this paper is here to discuss.
Assisted suicide actually started about three decades ago when Dr. Jack Kevorkian invented the first known “suicide machine” (Feldman, 2017). This machine allowed patients to press a button and upon pressing the button released a drug to stop the heart (Feldman, 2017). Kevorkian was assisting in suicide. He then spent eight years in prison for second-degree-murder (Feldman, 2017). People may see him as a murderer but in the end he helped over one hundred people end their suffering from an illness.
In a study done in 2001, a survey went out to psychologists and psychiatrists in New Mexico asking them questions on their professional thoughts of physician assisted suicide (DiPasquale & Gluck, 2001). These professionals were asked questions like “would you, as a professional, conduct evaluations of patients desiring physician-assisted suicide? Would you assist directly?” (DiPasquale & Gluck, 2001). What was found was that seventy-five percent of the professionals said that they believe physician assisted suicide be legalized, and, even seventeen percent of them were willing to participate if it was illegal (DiPasquale & Gluck, 2001). Fifty-five percent of the psychologists and psychiatrists also said that if physician assisted suicide were legal, they would personally assist in the process (DiPasquale & Gluck, 2001). When asked why, or what the most compelling argument was, fifty-seven percent said that a person has control over his or her own body and twenty-four percent of them said that helping the patient commit suicide because of unbearable suffering was merciful (DiPasquale & Gluck, 2001).
In 1950, American public polls documented that thirty-five percent of people were in favor of euthanasia and physician assisted suicide (Gittelman, 1999). In more recent years, the polls show that the number has risen from thirty-five percent to more than sixty percent of people being in favor of euthanasia and physician assisted suicide (Gittelman, 1999). Even though there were race differences and age differences in who was and was not in favor, the rise is going to continue (Gittelman, 1999). The most frequent hypothetical reason chosen for why a person would choose euthanasia or physician assisted suicide was that they did not want to be a burden on their family, the hardship of taking care of an ill person can be a lot and the person does not want that burden on their family (Gittelman, 1999). A less frequent reason was that the person did not want to live in pain, they wanted to be dependent from life support machines, and they did not want to be unable to perform daily activities (Gittelman, 1999). A majority of Americans also said that if they were in a comatose state, they would want their families and physicians to speak about end of life decisions and further options (Gittelman, 1999). Some arguments given, in favor of euthanasia and physician assisted suicide, were that patient autonomy should be promoted and that medical costs would go down, ultimately benefitting many (Gittelman, 1999). Instead of keeping a person on life support or giving them new drugs every month that do not help, or anything else expensive, choosing to end life can be cost effective. Medical costs would be lowered by “cutting short expensive end-of-life treatment” (Gittelman, 1999, p. 372). It also is believed that the principle American society holds that the government should intrude as little as possible in a person’s life, and by not allowing a person the carry out their own affairs and their right to freedom is going against that principle (Gittelman, 1999).
One main reason people are against euthanasia and physician assisted suicide is the idea that you are involving yourself with divine intervention, only God can allow you to die. Jenifer Hamil-Luker and Christian Smith saw this problem and decided to study to what extent people are likely to reject tradition and choose euthanasia or physician assisted suicide (Hamil-Luker & Smith, 1998). Euthanasia and physician assisted suicide goes against the idea of Judeo-Christians idea that life is sacred and no one should end their own life. This study asked people, of all different faiths and religions, “When a person has a disease that cannot be cured, do you think doctors should be allowed by law to end the patient’s life by some painless means if the patient and his family request it?” (Hamil-Luker & Smith, 1998). What they found was astonishing, most people from many religions said yes (Hamil-Luker & Smith, 1998). The majority of Protestants supported euthanasia and physician assisted suicide (Hamil-Luker & Smith, 1998). The majority of Catholics, Jews, Non-Christians/Jews, and people with no religious affiliation also supported the right to die (Hamil-Luker & Smith, 1998). When faced with the actual question, many people of different religions actually went against their own beliefs and supported euthanasia and physician assisted suicide.
Euthanasia and physician assisted suicide is usually thought to be associated with adults or the elderly but it is also applied to newborns. In the Netherlands, of the 200,000 children born each year, about one thousand die during the first year or life and about six hundred die by the hands of a medical professional (Verhagen, Pieter, & Sauer, 2005). For infants, suffering cannot be measured but there is trust in caregivers and parents to evaluate the pain and evaluate the best course of action to be taken (Verhagen, Pieter, & Sauer, 2005). There are three categories of infants where end-of-life decisions can be made (Verhagen, Pieter, & Sauer, 2005). The first group is infants with no chance of survival, the second is infants with a poor prognosis and who will be going to be dependent on intensive care, and finally the infants with hopeless prognosis and who experience unbearable suffering (Verhagen, Pieter, & Sauer, 2005). When a physician decides to end life-prolonging treatment in an infant who has no chance of surviving, it is considered good practice and even acceptable in the United States (Verhagen, Pieter, & Sauer, 2005). If euthanasia and physician assisted suicide are considered acceptable in infants, then it should be acceptable for anyone who can make their own choices.
Although there is research suggesting that medical professionals, the general public, and people of various religions approve the use of euthanasia and physician assisted suicide, there are still people that are against euthanasia and physician assisted suicide. Many people argue that the Hippocratic Oath, the basis of medical ethics, is against euthanasia and physician assisted suicide. The Hippocratic Oath clearly states that “I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody if asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect”, meaning they will not assist in the suicide of a patient (Requena, 2016). Yes, the Hippocratic Oath does state that but it also is all about the idea that a doctor should do no harm to their patients. By allowing a patient to live painfully while suffering tremendously, the physician is causing harm. If the physician has gone through all the options and the only remaining one was impending death, a doctor has the duty to assess the patient’s condition and see if they meet the requirements to be eligible for euthanasia or physician assisted suicide. If a patient brings it up then the patient can trust the physician to “do no harm” and allow them to have a good death before the illness takes them.
Another reason people oppose euthanasia and physician assisted suicide is because they think it can lead to a slippery slope and it will lead to other actions that are morally wrong (Benatar, 2011). Many provide the Dutch laws as an example as they have become more permissive from when euthanasia was initially implemented (Benatar, 2011). First, they only allowed euthanasia and physician assisted suicide for the terminally ill, then they added the chronically ill, people suffering psychologically, and incompetent patients, including children (Benatar, 2011). A slippery slope argument is all based on assumptions, when, in reality, this slope probably will not even happen.
Supporting euthanasia and physician assisted suicide is supporting people to die with dignity rather than forcing them to live with pain. The patient has their own right to life and can decide whether they want to live or when they want to die. Research suggests that medical professionals agree with this idea, the general public agrees with this idea, and even people who actively practice and associate themselves with a religion. Some may believe euthanasia and physician assisted suicide are immoral or unjust, but forcing a person to live a life they do not want to live or cannot change is immoral. Instead of Thomas, the 82 year-old who organized his own suicide, going through distress to plan his own death, he could have been saved the trouble and had gotten the help he needed from a physician to die the way he wanted, with dignity.
References
Benatar, D. (2011). A legal right to die: Responding to slippery slope and abuse arguments. Current Oncology, 18(5), 206–207.
DiPasquale, T., & Gluck, J. P. (2001). Psychologists, psychiatrists, and physician-assisted suicide: The relationship between underlying beliefs and professional behavior. Profes- sional Psychology: Research and Practice, 32(5), 501-506. doi:10.1037/0735- 7028.32.5.501
Feldman, R. S. (2017). Death and Dying. In Life Span Development: a topical approach (Third ed., pp. 469-470). Boston, Massachusetts: Pearson.
Gittelman, D. K. (1999). Euthanasia and physician-assisted Suicide. Southern Medical Journal, 92(4), 369-374.
Hamil-Luker, J., & Smith, C. (1998). Religious authority and public opinion on the right to die. Sociology Of Religion, 59(4), 373
Lewis, P. (2005, October 06). Assisted dying: What does the law in different countries say? Retrieved December 05, 2017, from http://www.bbc.com/news/world-34445715
Requena, P. (2016). Why should the world medical association not change its policy towards euthanasia?. World Medical Journal, 62(3), 99-103.
Verhagen, E., & Sauer, P. J. (2005, March 10). The groningen protocol — euthanasia in se- verely ill newborns. New England Journal of Medicine. pp. 959-962. doi:10.1056/NE JMp058026.
Vink, T. (2016). Self-euthanasia, the dutch experience: In search for the meaning of a good death or eu thanatos. Bioethics, 30(9), 681-688. doi:10.1111/bioe.12279