The right to assisted suicide is a significant topic that concerns people all over the United States. The debates go back and forth about whether a dying patient has the right to die with the assistance of a physician. Some are against it because of religious and moral reasons. Others are for it because of their compassion and respect for the dying. Physicians are also divided on the issue. They differ where they place the line that separates relief from dying--and killing. For many the main concern with assisted suicide lies with the competence of the terminally ill. Many terminally ill patients who are in the final stages of their lives have requested doctors to aid them in exercising active euthanasia. It is sad to realize that these people are in great agony and that to them the only hope of bringing that agony to a halt is through assisted suicide.When people see the word euthanasia, they see the meaning of the word in two different lights. Euthanasia for some carries a negative connotation; it is the same as murder. For others, however, euthanasia is the act of putting someone to death painlessly, or allowing a person suffering from an incurable and painful disease or condition to die by withholding extreme medical measures. But after studying both sides of the issue, a compassionate individual must conclude that competent terminal patients should be given the right to assisted suicide in order to end their suffering, reduce the damaging financial effects of hospital care on their families, and preserve the individual right of people to determine their own fate.
Medical technology today has achieved remarkable feats in prolonging the lives of human beings. Respirators can support a patient’s failing lungs and medicines can sustain that patient’s physiological processes. For those patients who have a realistic chance of surviving an illness or accident, medical technology is science’s greatest gift to mankind. For the terminally ill, however, it is just a means of prolonging suffering. Medicine is supposed to alleviate the suffering that a patient undergoes.Yet the only thing that medical technology does for a dying patient is give that patient more pain and agony day after day. Some terminal patients in the past have gone to their doctors and asked for a final medication that would take all the pain away— lethal drugs. For example, as Ronald Dworkin recounts, Lillian Boyes, an English woman who was suffering from a severe case of rheumatoid arthritis, begged her doctor to assist her to die because she could no longer stand the pain (184). Another example is Dr. Ali Khalili, Dr. Jack Kevorkian’s twentieth patient. According to Kevorkian’s attorney, “[Dr. Khalili] was a pain specialist; he could get any kind of pain medication, but he came to Dr. Kevorkian. There are times when pain medication does not suffice”(qtd. in Cotton 363). Terminally ill patients should have the right to assisted suicide because it is the best means for them to end the pain caused by an illness which no drug can cure. A competent terminal patient must have the option of assisted suicide because it is in the best interest of that person.
Further, a dying person’s physical suffering can be most unbearable to that person’s immediate family. Medical technology has failed to save a loved-one. But, successful or not, medicine has a high price attached to it. The cost is sometimes too much for the terminally ill’s family. A competent dying person has some knowledge of this, and with every day that he or she is kept alive, the hospital costs skyrocket. “The cost of maintaining [a dying person]. . . has been estimated as ranging from about two thousand to ten thousand dollars a month” (Dworkin 187). Human life is expensive, and in the hospital there are only a few affluent terminal patients who can afford to prolong what life is left in them. As for the not-so-affluent patients, the cost of their lives is left to their families. Of course, most families do not consider the cost while the terminally ill loved-one is still alive.When that loved-one passes away, however, the family has to struggle with a huge hospital bill and are often subject to financial ruin.Most terminal patients want their death to be a peaceful one and with as much consolation as possible. Ronald Dworkin, author of Life’s Dominion, says that “many people . . . want to save their relatives the expense of keeping them pointlessly alive . . .”(193). To leave the family in financial ruin is by no means a form of consolation. Those terminally ill patients who have accepted their imminent death cannot prevent their families from plunging into financial debt because they do not have the option of halting the medical bills from piling up. If terminal patients have the option of assisted suicide, they can ease their families’ financial burdens as well as their suffering.
Finally, many terminal patients want the right to assisted suicide because it is a means to endure their end without the unnecessary suffering and cost. Most, also, believe that the right to assisted suicide is an inherent right which does not have to be given to the individual. It is a liberty which cannot be denied because those who are dying might want to use this liberty as a way to pursue their happiness. Dr. Kevorkian’s attorney, Geoffrey N. Fieger, voices the absurdity of curbing the right to assisted suicide, saying that “a law which does not make anybody do anything, that gives people the right to decide, and prevents the state from prosecuting you for exercising your freedom not to suffer, violates somebody else’s constitutional rights is insane” (qtd. in Cotton 364). Terminally ill patients should be allowed to die with dignity. Choosing the right to assisted suicide would be a final exercise of autonomy for the dying. They will not be seen as people who are waiting to die but as human beings making one final active choice in their lives. As Dworkin puts it, “whatever view we take about [euthanasia], we want the right to decide for ourselves . . .”(239).
On the other side of the issue, however, people who are against assisted suicide do not believe that the terminally ill have the right to end their suffering. They hold that it is against the Hippocratic Oath for doctors to participate in active euthanasia. Perhaps most of those who hold this argument do not know that, for example, in Canada only a “few medical schools use the Hippocratic Oath” because it is inconsistent with its premises (Barnard 28). The oath makes the physician promise to relieve pain and not to administer deadly medicine.This oath cannot be applied to cancer patients. For treatment, cancer patients are given chemotherapy, a form of radioactive medicine that is poisonous to the body. As a result of chemotherapy, the body suffers incredible pain, hair loss, vomiting, and other extremely unpleasant side effects. Thus, chemotherapy can be considered “deadly medicine” because of its effects on the human body, and this inconsistency is the reason why the Hippocratic Oath cannot be used to deny the right to assisted suicide. Furthermore, to administer numerous drugs to a terminal patient and place him or her on medical equipment does not help anything except the disease itself. Respirators and high dosages of drugs cannot save the terminal patient from the victory of a disease or an illness. Dr. Christaan Barnard, author of Good Life/GoodDeath, quotes his colleague, Dr. Robert Twycross, who said, “To use such measures in the terminally ill, with no expectancy of a return to health, is generally inappropriate and is—therefore—bad medicine by definition” (22).
Still other people argue that if the right to assisted suicide is given, the doctor-patient relationship would encourage distrust. The antithesis of this claim is true. Cheryl Smith, in her article advocating active euthanasia (or assisted suicide), says that “patients who are able to discuss sensitive issues such as this are more likely to trust their physicians” (409). A terminal patient consenting to assisted suicide knows that a doctor’s job is to relieve pain, and giving consent to that doctor shows great trust. Other opponents of assisted suicide insist that there are potential abuses that can arise from legalizing assisted suicide.They claim that terminal patients might be forced to choose assisted suicide because of their financial situation.This view is to be respected. However, the choice of assisted suicide is in the patient’s best interest, and this interest can include the financial situation of a patient’s relatives. Competent terminal patients can easily see the sorrow and grief that their families undergo while they wait for death to take their dying loved ones away. The choice of assisted suicide would allow these terminally ill patients to end the sorrow and griefof their families as well as their own misery. The choice would also put a halt to the financial worries of these families. It is in the patient’s interest that the families that they leave will be subject to the smallest amount of grief and worry possible.This is not a mere “duty to die.” It is a caring way for the dying to say, “Yes, I am going to die. It is all right, please do not worry anymore.” Further, legalization of assisted suicide will also help to regulate the practice of it. “Legalization, with medical record documentation and reporting requirements, will enable authorities to regulate the practice and guard against abuses, while punishing real offenders”(Smith 409).
There are still some, however, who argue that the right to assisted suicide is not a right that can be given to anyone at all. This claim is countered by a judge by the name of Stephen Reinhardt. According to an article in the Houston Chronicle, Judge Reinhardt ruled on this issue by saying that “a competent, terminally-ill adult, having lived nearly the full measure of his life, has a strong liberty interest in choosing a dignified and humane death rather than being reduced at the end of his existence to a childlike state of helplessness, diapered, sedated, incompetent” ( qtd. in Beck 36). This ruling is the strongest defense for the right to assisted suicide. It is an inherent right. No man or woman should ever suffer because he or she is denied the right. The terminally ill also have rights like normal, healthy citizens do and they cannot be denied the right not to suffer.
The right to assisted suicide must be freely bestowed upon those who are terminally ill. This right would allow them to leave this earth with dignity, save their families from financial ruin, and relieve them of insufferable pain. To give competent, terminally-ill adults this necessary right is to give them the autonomy to close the book on a life well-lived.
Barnard, Christaan. Good Life/Good Death. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice, 1980.
Beck, Joan. “Answers to Right-to-Die Questions Hard.”Houston Chronicle 16 Mar. 1996, late ed.: 36.
Cotton, Paul. “Medicine’s Position Is Both Pivotal And Precarious In Assisted Suicide Debate." The
Journal of the American Association 1 Feb. 1995: 363-64.
Dworkin, Ronald. Life’s Dominion. New York: Knopf, 1993.
Smith, Cheryl. “Should Active Euthanasia Be Legalized: Yes.” American Bar Association Journal April 1993. Rpt. in CQ
Researcher 5.1 (1995): 409.
--Esther B. De La Torre
Free Essays brought to you by 123HelpMe.com
Euthanasia is Inherently Wrong
My impression is that the idea of euthanasia, if not the practice, is
gradually gaining acceptance within our society. People like Jack Kevorkian
attribute this to an increasing inclination to devalue human life, but I do not
believe that this is the major factor. The acceptance of euthanasia is much
more likely to be the result of unthinking sympathy and benevolence. It is an
easy step from this very human response to the view that if someone would be
better off dead, then it must be right to kill that person. Although I respect
the compassion that leads to this conclusion, I believe that this conclusion is
wrong. I want to show that euthanasia is wrong. It is inherently wrong, but
it is also wrongly judged from the standpoints of self-interest and of practical
Before presenting my arguments, it would be well to define "euthanasia".
An essential aspect of euthanasia is that it involve taking a human life. Also,
the person whose life is taken must be someone who is believed to be suffering
from an incurable disease or injury from which recovery cannot reasonably be
expected. Finally the action must be deliberate and intentional. Therefore
euthanasia is intentionally taking the life of a presumably hopeless person.
It is important to be clear about the deliberate and intentional aspect
of the killing. If a hopeless person is given an injection of the wrong drug by
mistake and this causes his/her death, this is wrongful killing but not
euthanasia. The killing cannot be the result of an accident. In addition, if
the person is given an injection of a drug that is believed to be necessary to
treat their disease or better their condition and the person dies as a result,
then this is neither wrongful killing nor euthanasia. The intention was to make
the patient well, not kill them.
Every human being has a natural inclination to continue living. Our
reflexes and responses fit us to fight attackers, flee wild animals, and dodge
out of the way of trucks. In our daily lives we exercise caution and care
necessary to protect ourselves. Our bodies are similarly structured for
survival right down to the molecular level. When we are cut, our capillaries
seal shut, our blood clots, and fibrogen is produced to start the process of
healing the wound. When we are invaded by bacteria, antibodies are produced to
fight against the alien organism, and their remains are swept out of the body by
special cells designed for clean-up work.
It is enough I believe to recognize that the organization of the human
body and our patterns of behavioral response make the continuation of life a
natural goal. By reason alone, then, we can recognize that euthanasia sets us
against our own nature. In addition euthanasia does damage to our dignity. Our
dignity comes from seeking our ends. When one of our goals is survival, and
actions are taken that eliminate that goal, then our natural dignity suffers.
Therefore, euthanasia denies our basic human character and requires that we
regard ourselves or others as something less than fully human.
The above arguments are, I believe, sufficient to show that euthanasia
is inherently wrong. But there are reasons for considering it wrong when judged
by standards other than reason. Because death is final and irreversible,
euthanasia contains within it the possibility that we will work against our own
interest if we practice it or allow it to be practiced on us.
Contemporary medicine has high standards of excellence and has a proven
record of accomplishment, but it does not possess perfect and complete knowledge.
A mistaken diagnosis is possible, and so is a mistaken prognosis. Consequently,
we may believe that we are dying of a disease when as a matter of fact, we may
not be. We may think that we have no hope of recovery when, as a matter of fact,
our chances are quite good. In such circumstances, if euthanasia were permitted,
we would die for no reason. Death is final and the chance of error is too great
to approve the practice of euthanasia.
There have been many cases where spontaneous remissions have occurred.
For no apparent reason, a patient simply recovers when those around him/her,
including physicians, expected the patient to die. Euthanasia would just
guarantee their expectations and leave no room for the miraculous recoveries
that frequently occur.
Finally, knowing that we can take our own life's at any time (or ask
another to take it) we tend to give up, and rely on euthanasia. The will to
live is strong in all of us, but it can be weakened by pain and suffering and
the feeling of hopelessness. If during a bad time we allow ourselves to be
killed, we would never have a chance to reconsider. Recovery from a serious
illness requires that we fight for it, and anything that weakens out
determination by suggesting that there is an easy way out is ultimately against
our own interest. Also, we may be inclined towards euthanasia because of our
concern for others. If we see our sickness and suffering as an emotional and
financial burden on our family, we may feel that to leave our life is to make
their lives easier.
Doctors and nurses, for the most part, are totally committed to saving
lives. A life lost for them is almost a personal failure, an insult to their
skills and knowledge. Euthanasia as a practice might alter this. It could have
a corrupting influence so that in any case that is severe doctors and nurses
might not try hard enough to save the patient. They might decide that the
patient would simply be "better off dead" and that the steps necessary to help
that person would not be carried out. This attitude could then carry over to
their dealing with patients less seriously ill. The result would be an overall
decline in the quality of medical care.
I hope that I have succeeded in showing why the good will that inclines
us to give approval of euthanasia is mislaid. Euthanasia is inherently wrong
because it violated the nature and dignity of human beings. But even those who
are not convinced by this must be persuaded that the potential personal and
social dangers inherent in euthanasia are sufficient to forbid our approving it
as a personal practice.
Suffering is surely a terrible thing, and we have a clear duty to
comfort those in need and to ease their suffering when we can. But suffering is
also a natural part of life with values for the individual and for others that
we should not overlook. We may legitimately seek for others and for ourselves
and pain-less death. Euthanasia, however, is not just an easeful death. It is
a wrongful death. Euthanasia is not just dying. It is killing.
Partner sites: French Bulldog, Spanish school in Quito, and Wedding Speeches