Claudia Avila Phil 2306 Second Essay 11/01/11

Euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide

Euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide is a topic that has been fiercely debated, both morally and legally. It has been argued in church and in schools. It has been argued in the medical field and in the field of law. Each point of view has been fiercely defended by all involved. Why has this one subject created such an outcry? Proponents of this topic believe that terminally ill individuals should be able to make the choice as to whether they live out the rest of their lives in pain or die with dignity. A living will could definitively state the request without question. They also believe that it show compassion for both the patient and their loved ones. The proponents argue that technology in medicine has become so advanced, it has become almost impossible to die naturally. Opponents of euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide argue that the process is towing the line towards all out murder. Their reasoning for this statement is based on the argument that taking the first step towards euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide may lead one to go even further down the slippery slope. The opponents believe that society will become desensitized after awhile and go from allowing a

terminally ill person the right to die, to euthanizing an individual because they are not deemed a productive member of society. They fear that the choice may no longer lie in the patient, but in the doctor. They also believe that any legalization of euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide could target the poor and disabled, who are unable to afford proper healthcare. Religious groups have argued that euthanasia and physicianassisted suicide is a sin on two fronts. One being that the individual who wants to die is committing suicide, and therefore will not go to heaven. The other is the doctor who authorizes it is, in a sense, committing murder. A few public examples of this battle range from Dr. Jack Kevorkian, who believed that he was not ending a life but ending suffering, to the 2002 case of Terry Schiavo, whom did not have any documented choice to end her life. Dr. Jack Kevorkian became famous for his role in assisting the deaths of at least 130 patients during his career. He once proclaimed My aim in helping the patient was not to cause death. My aim was to end suffering. It's got to be decriminalized.(1) In 1999, Kevorkian was convicted of second-degree murder and served eight years of a 10-to-25-year prison sentence for his part in ending the life of Thomas Youk, who was in the final stages of Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. Terry Schiavo was 27 years old when she collapsed in a hallway of her apartment in 1990. The initial prognosis was cardiac arrest. Unfortunately, as a result, Mrs. Schiavo was diagnosed as being in a persistent vegetative state. In 1998 Terrys husband Michael filed a petition to remove her feeding tube so that she may pass on. Terrys parents opposed this action and sued. The court battles lasted for about two years before Judge Greer ordered to remove the feeding tube on March 18, 2005.

These two examples give a window into the lives of the terminally ill patients who want to end their suffering as well as the family members affected by their illness. I firmly believe that every individual has the right to choose how they spend their last days. Here is my rationale. If I am suffering from a terminal disease, I do not feel that I should have to go through the pain and misery associated with this illness. I definitely do not want to leave my loved ones with the knowledge that I suffered through the end of my life. It is hard for me to be objective in my rationale due to the fact that how I live or die should depend on what I want. Unfortunately, any doctor will tell you that they are committed, either morally or by law, to preserve life. They may feel that my best option is to die in peace now rather than suffer for a few years, but professionally, they cannot act on such a thing. To do so would put them at odds with the majority in the medical community. If a patient was found to have a terminal illness on top of an already debilitating condition, would it be ethical to save the patient knowing that he/she will eventually die from the terminal illness? For example, a patient has been on dialysis for three years. One day he checks into the hospital due to agonizing stomach pains. It turns out that the patient has stomach cancer, as well as an unidentified mass on his liver. The doctor tells the patient that the cancer is terminal. Not because of the cancer itself, but because at his age and current state of health, chemotherapy would kill the patient. The doctor also tells the patient that if they were to do a biopsy, the patient would feel much more pain than what he is feeling at present time and that the risk of infection is very high, which could also kill him. Add the fact that the current dosage of painkillers is

insufficient, but administering a larger dosage would kill the patient. Simply put, no matter what happens, the patient will die. Utilitarianism seems to be the most supportive moral theory with regards to euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide. This is based on the fact that Utilitarianism promotes human welfare, as well as the well being of others involved. Take into consideration that a patient who is suffering is not happy, to say the least. His/her family members are not going to be grateful that the patient is alive if he/she is in pain the whole time. In this case the argument could be made that the patients death would be beneficial for him/her in that they will no longer be suffering. The family members would also benefit in the knowledge that the patient would no longer suffer. The patient would also see a benefit in the fact that there will not be any further financial burden levied on his/her family. Overall, Utilitarianism is the most useful theory in defending this position. It covers the initial well being of the patient involved, and the family members overall happiness that they dont have to see the patient suffer. The natural law theory is of little or no use in an argument such as this. Natural law theory relies heavily on intention, in this case what intentions do the patient and the doctor have? The patient intends to die and the doctors intention is to end it for him. The natural law theory deals with absolutism. This means that the feelings a patient and his/her family are not equated in this theoretical solution. If a patient is feeling pain, then he/she is meant to. In the case of euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide, there are no absolutes. There is compassion.

Citing (1) Jacob 'Jack' Kevorkian Dies; Death With Dignity Proponent Remembered". medicalnewstoday.com. 2011 [last update]. http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/227470.php. Retrieved November 15, 2011