Legalization of Physician-Assisted Suicide

Legalization of Physician-Assisted Suicide

Most people rarely think of terminal illness until it confronts them, whether it is through a friend, family member, or the one who is receiving the fatal diagnosis. Recent advancements in medical technology provide helpful ways to ease the pain and suffering. When predicting no expectation of recovery and death is likely, many past and new emotions are triggered in not only the patient but also the loved ones of the patient. Due to the terminal nature, many patients have reduced the physical ability and are in a genuine state of discomfort. Sometimes the only way to escape the emotions, pain, depression, and suffering is to remove the burden; however, it is not an immediate convenience. Physician-Assisted Suicide or, PAS, transpires “when a medical doctor provides the means for death to occur and the patient self-administers it” (Manetta 1). There has been a long morality debate--between the patient’s right to die against the state’s right to preserve life in the US--over PAS in the medical community, philosophical literature, and media. Usually, people are in support of the legalization of PAS under specific stipulations or totally against the whole practice. As well as PAS, euthanasia is also considered a way to terminate the unacceptable, hopeless, persistent suffering of those battling a never ending ailment. Funk & Wagnalls New World Encyclopedia defines euthanasia as the “practice of ending another’s life with the aim of enabling the person to avoid severe suffering,” (1) but can sometimes be “used in a more general sense to refer to an easy or painless death” (1). Nevertheless, the majority of people agree that it “should be reserved for the people who are dying from terminal illness” (Manetta 1). Only five states in the USA provide the option with legal rights and legal boundaries to follow through with PAS (Maynard). Despite no federal laws concerning physician-assisted suicide, the regulations originate only on the specific states policies. Physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia under certain circumstances throughout the United States of America.

Ever since the great societies of ancient Greece and Rome, euthanasia and PAS have been pronounced as acceptable morally and, more importantly, legally. Most commonly, euthanasia was approved in many ancient societies for the elderly. “Both Socrates and Plato sanctioned forms of euthanasia in certain cases” (Funk & Wagnalls New World Encyclopedia 1). Cases of PAS have been gaining more attention recently, since the 1970s because of increasing curiosity. For example, Dr. Jack Kevorkian, who was criticized for his work being “procedurally flawed” showed a device to a press conference in which a person who wanted to die could self-administer chemicals (only after assistance from a trained physician) (Darr 1). He soon gained more popularity in the United States largely due to one specific case, even though he assisted in no less than 130 suicides. Approximately 70 of those suicides were with his assistance and intervention, only 25 percent were diagnosed with a terminal illness, and many of his patients were suffering from “various chronic or degenerative diseases and whose mental state was unknown, raising significant ethical issues” (Darr 2). Even though in this instance he claimed to be practicing PAS, he was more or less practicing active euthanasia and becoming directly involved in administering the lethal drug.

Janet Adkins was 54 years old and suffered from the early stages of Alzheimer’s disease. She feared to lose her memory and the ability to engage in normal activities and sought the help of Dr. Jack Kevorkian, a retired pathologist, to assist her in committing suicide before her mental abilities became so impaired that she could no longer make a rational decision. By the end of 1996, Kevorkian had assisted in more than 40 suicides. (Darr 1)

Kevorkian is now perceived as “unqualified to diagnose or understand the illnesses because he is a pathologist,” (Darr 2) because he made very minimal effort to diagnose his patients with a terminal illness while, also, initially publicizing his work, his machine, and himself in his field of active euthanasia. Active euthanasia “refers to the physician directly contributing to the patient’s death (e.g. the physician injecting a lethal injection of a muscle relaxant)” (Dickinson 1). In today’s culture, the advancements and labor of Dr. Jack Kevorkian are not viewed as ethically and morally correct. The unabridged point of PAS and euthanasia is to peacefully rest and die in a state of dignity. By the supreme court judicial standards, Kevorkian did not follow through with any right to preserve life which ultimately sent him to prison for 10-25 years under the convictions of second-degree murder and many more criminal proceedings. All means aside, many people who are for legalizing PAS and euthanasia do not think that what Kevorkian did is right and anticipate legal limitations on PAS and euthanasia if it is permitted in the USA (Darr 1).

While many terminally ill patients guide their way through increasing support from others and their diminishing health, their group of physicians, doctors, and psychiatrists number one goal is to achieve pain management (Levy 1). In fact, “most major hospitals in Oregon have established strong pain management programs to give patients an alternative to assisted suicide” (Darr 6). Oregon is one of the few states in which PAS and euthanasia are legal, as long as the physicians prescribe, “but not administer, medications that can be used to end life” (Darr 4). Multiple states have challenged the District and Supreme courts and only succeeded with minimal triumph in the favorable outcome. One very publicized example of a patient who was searching for an “end-of-life option for the mentally competent, terminally ill patients with a prognosis of six or fewer months to live,” is Brittany Maynard (Maynard). She was a twenty-nine-year-old advocate for Compassion and Choices, the nation’s leading death with dignity options organization (Maynard). Having only been married for one year and wanting to start a family soon, Maynard was heart-broken when she received the news of having terminal brain cancer. She and her family opted to uproot from San Francisco, California, to Portland, Oregon, to avoid developing “potentially morphine-resistant pain and suffering personality changes and verbal, cognitive and motor loss,” in a hospice care home (Maynard). Once filling her prescription after establishing residency in the first state to legalize PAS, she decided to take her own life after having the medicine for many weeks, traveling, and her husband’s birthday. Maynard stated, ”Having this choice at the end