Euthanasia

Euthanasia:

Crime, or Logical Choice?

I became interested in the topic of euthanasia in my English class. One of my classmates told a story about a man who became severely injured in a war. The man had stepped on a land mine which caused him to lose his arms and legs, his hearing and sight, and also his ability to talk. The man would constantly bang his head on the hospital bed. At first no one knew why the man was banging his head, but then later realized he was communicating by Morse code. "Kill me" was the message he was continually sending. Hearing this story made me sad. I started asking myself questions such as, "Why wouldn't someone just kill him and put him out of his misery? Would I want to live if I were in that situation? Is it considered murder if someone did assist in killing him?"

Euthanasia comes from Greek origin and translates to "easy death". The practice of euthanasia is a very controversial issue in our society. Euthanasia, also referred to as mercy killing, can be defined as the act of putting someone to death painlessly, or allowing someone to die by withholding medical treatment. I have great interest in this topic, and I am determined to find my position on the issue. I started my investigation by interviewing my friends and family.

I first discussed the topic with my mom. She argued that euthanasia stops someone from suffering. She believes that no one should be forced to stay alive. "If someone is suffering and

does not want to live anymore, then why should they have to?". She explained that a person who

is terminally ill or is in great pain should have the right to end his or her life. I agreed with the points my mom was making, but I wanted to get another point of view about the topic. So I asked my friend Katie.

Katie, who has strong beliefs about this topic, feels that euthanasia is a way of playing God. She believes that God has a plan which includes when you are supposed to die.

Dying before you are supposed to is "against God's will."She explained that helping to kill someone is morally wrong. Although I still agreed with my mom, I found that Katie's points did have some validity.

In order to have a better understanding of my topic, I searched the library to search for a scholarly article about euthanasia. While searching on the internet, I came across an article called "Policy, Prejudice, and Reality: Two Case Studies of Physician-Assisted Suicide" by Paul Longmore. He states that disabled people are almost never given opportunities to live independently but are frequently allowed to receive physician-assisted suicide. He suggests that government policies prevent independent living for disabled people, which makes their live unbearable. Longmore concludes that granting physician-assisted suicide for disabled people would be prejudicial and discriminatory. I concur with some of Longmore's points, but it seems as though he gives limited reasoning for opposing physician-assisted suicide. In talking only about the disabled, he does not recognize other types of people. What about the terminally ill? Or someone in a great amount of pain? I needed to find out as much as I could about euthanasia to try to come to a conclusion.

The first questions I had on my mind were what types of people are obtaining euthanasia

and where is euthanasia legal? Oregon is the only state in the United States that has legalized physician-assisted suicide. Oregon's Death With Dignity law consists of doctors prescribing lethal medications to the terminally ill. The law went into effect in 1997. Fewer than 50 people a year die from assisted suicide; it accounts for only one-seventh of one percent of all deaths in Oregon. It seemed to me that there is not anything wrong with this law. It's not out of control, and there have been no reported complications. I think that Oregon's Death with Dignity law does have merit . The only question I had was, whether or not this law should be limited only to the terminally ill. What about the severely disabled? I realized that in order to come to a position on this issue I would have to research an actual case of physician-assisted suicide. I decided to explore the Terri Schiavo case.

Theresa "Terri" Schiavo experienced a heart attack while at her home in 1990. The lack of oxygen for several minutes caused massive brain damage. Three years later doctors diagnosed Terri to be in a persistent vegetative state, which means that there is an absence of voluntary action and an inability to interact with her environment. She had a slim chance for recovery. In 1998, Terri's husband Michael requested that Terri's feeding tube, which was keeping her alive, be removed. However, Terri's parents, Robert and Mary Schindler, fought many legal battles that opposed Michael's requests. The courts were continually in favor of Michael and, despite the Schindler's interventions, found that Terri was in a persistent vegetative state with no chances of recovery and would not want to be kept on life support. Terri's feeding tube was removed on March 18, 2005, and she died fourteen days later at the age of 41. As I studied the case many

questions came to me. Was it right for Terri to die from starvation? Was this what Terri wanted?

There were two sides to this story and I wanted to understand both. I started with the opposing side.

Robert and Mary Schindler wanted their daughter to stay alive. They believed that killing

their daughter by starvation and dehydration would be inhumane. I started to think, could I even

go one day without eating or drinking? It seems to me that starvation and dehydration would be a very painful death. Was this the way that Terri should have died? I'm sure watching someone you love starve and dehydrate to death must be unforgettably horrible. Another opposing argument is that Terri is severally disabled, not terminally ill. Her medical condition would not eventually kill her. Maybe if she was given rehabilitation treatment, her condition might have improved. Being devout Catholics and pro-life activists, the Schindler