Madeline+On+Kevorkian+and+Euthanasia

The term “euthanasia” translates to an “easy death”. To some, it signifies the saving grace of a merciful benefactor; to others, it represents a malicious infringement upon the sanctity of life. Though its name alone does not imply it, euthanasia is among the most controversial topics faced by modern society. Those most opposed to the practice- the Catholic Church and disabled rights activists- believe that ending a person’s life prematurely is a blatant disregard for the value of life. On the opposing side, many doctors who experience the suffering of patients every day (as well as disabled persons who choose the practice for themselves) believe that the right to a “dignified death” should be reserved to every human being. In the end, I believe that while life is not something to just be thrown away, the ultimate decision of whether to die rather than suffer should be left to the individual. For me, it is not necessarily a matter of what is right or wrong for the entire community, but about the autonomy of the individual and the right to choose how to handle their own suffering.

Euthanasia (especially active euthanasia, the type that is performed by a doctor’s hand) is vehemently opposed by proponents of the sanctity of life. One of the most prominent voices on this issue is that of the Catholic Church. In the official Declaration on Euthanasia by the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Cardinal Franjo Seper proclaimed the beliefs of the Church on this issue. In the words of the Cardinal, “It is necessary to state firmly once more that nothing and no one can in any way permit the killing of an innocent human being, whether a fetus or an embryo, an infant or an adult, an old person, or one suffering from an incurable disease, or a person who is dying… for it is a question of the violation of the divine law, an offence against the dignity of the human person, a crime against life, and an attack on humanity.” The church retains the position that euthanasia is not “mercy killing”, it is a crime against God and against humanity. According to the church, suffering should be endured as a part of God’s plan, as a “sharing in Christ’s Passion and a union with the redeeming sacrifice which he offered in obedience to the father’s will.” The church allows passive euthanasia- the removal of any extreme measures to preserve life- but does not in any way permit the active role of a doctor in the death (merciful or not) of a patient. It is wrong in all cases because it goes against God’s plan; it robs a person of their precious right to life.

Another major authority on the debate against euthanasia is the influence of disabled rights activists. These organizations often have more credibility on the issue because they are the people who are experiencing suffering first-hand. One woman who has dedicated her life to fighting for the rights of the handicapped, Alison Davis, was born with a severe physical disability called spinal bifida. In her essay “Right to Life of Handicapped” she argues that her life and the lives of other disabled people have the same importance as those who supposedly have a “better quality of life”. As she points out, “I have suffered considerable and prolonged pain from time to time… [but] despite my disability I went to an ordinary school and then to university… I have been married eight years to an able bodied man.” She was given the chance to live, rather than being euthanized as a baby for the “low quality of life” promised by her condition. She warns that the “notion of non-personhood” supported by the bill that would legalize the euthanizing of disabled infants could push us down a slippery slope- eventually leading to the involuntary euthanizing of disabled people of all ages. Euthanasia, in her eyes, is murder of innocent people with no regard to how they may feel about their situation. From this point of view, allowing euthanasia to become legal would, at some level, devalue the lives of the disabled.

But on the other end of the spectrum, euthanasia is viewed as a basic human right. Though it is clearly not the choice of everyone, some disabled and terminally ill people have decided that their lives are no longer worth living due to the immense suffering that they experience every day. In the case of Chris Hill, it was not necessarily the fact that he was disabled that led him to commit suicide. It was that he had lived such an intense life before his accident that his current life seemed all the more dismal in comparison. He knew that he had “more than the proverbial happy childhood.” He had been able to experience “more than most people would experience in several lifetimes… I once lived life to the max.” But, after his accident that left him a paraplegic, “tomorrows were nothing but a grey void of bleak despair.” He hated his existence, but persevered for as long as he could bear it. But in the end, he lamented that “All my many pleasures had been stripped from me and replaced by a hellish living nightmare.” Keeping euthanasia from him was not protecting his precious right to life; it was torture. He sought an “easy death” because his life had been hell. For him, it was an individual decision that he knew would have drastic effects on his loved ones. He contemplated the validity of his decision very deeply before he finally chose to end his life. By the end of his life, he noted, “It’s quality of life, not quantity, that’s important.” For him, his life no longer had any quality. He came to this conclusion through his own judgment, and he did not wish to impose his decision upon anyone else. In fact, he had met several people who had comes to terms with their disabilities. He admired them; he just didn’t find them inspirational. For him, death was the only way out. Unfortunately, he was reduced to five suicide attempts (the last one successful) to end his suffering, rather than the “dignified death” of euthanasia facilitated by a physician.

Euthanasia is already legal in a few countries (and two states in the U.S.). Pieter Admiraal, a doctor in the Dutch city of Delft for over 40 years, has been helping his patients to die since the 1970s. In his point of view, active, doctor-assisted euthanasia is “sometimes morally right, as not only compatible with the properly understood duties and responsibilities of a doctor, but as an act sometimes //required// by them.” He backs up the rational nature of his work by pointing out that “the final decision could not be made unilaterally by a patient or her doctor. It had to be agreed to by a team consisting of two doctors, a nurse, and one of the hospital’s spiritual caregivers.” This diversified team of professionals provides a safeguard against the “slippery slope” that opponents of euthanasia tend to refer to. In this society, euthanasia has become a well thought out, professional service that makes sure not to rush into circumstances prematurely. One of Admiraal’s patients, a woman named Carla who was going through excruciating pain as her deadly cancer progressed, commented that “God could not have wanted this.” For doctors like Admiraal, euthanizing patients can be an act of mercy. He emphasizes that this isn’t necessarily something that he enjoys doing; it’s something that he has to do in order to perform his duties as an end-of-life-care physician. He believes that was “morally proper to help Carla in the way we did… As doctors, we have two primary duties: to ensure the well-being of our patients, and to respect their autonomy.” In the case of Carla, the rights of the individual were held in a higher esteem than the reservations of the doctor in helping her to die. He points out that “Palliative care is essential. It must always be an integral part of good medical care and voluntary euthanasia can never replace it.” However, we must also face the fact that it is “not possible to relieve all suffering”. Sometimes, euthanasia can be the best answer to the problem. This turned out to be true in the case of Esther, another one of Admiraal’s patients who was suffering from multiple sclerosis. In her case, the deliberations over her situation spanned over a great length of time. When the decision was finally made to honor her choice, she told them that it was the happiest day of her life. Admiraal was prosecuted for this case, since she was not actually in the terminal stage of her illness. But the charges were later dropped, validating his actions as morally acceptable under the circumstances.

But some proponents of active euthanasia are not as level-headed and convincing in their arguments. The infamous Dr. Kevorkian-Doctor Death- has brought the issue of euthanasia to the forefront with this active role in the deaths of over 100 patients and subsequent prison time. Kevorkian leaves me with a sort of creepy vibe. His excitement over his cause and his adamancy on the idea that all doctors should provide active euthanasia to their patients just seems gruesome to me. He seems to have a morbid attraction to death.

But I don’t think that Dr. Kevorkian, Admiraal, and others were completely wrong in their assertions about how to deal with the wishes of terminally ill patients. I know that if I ever got to the point where I was so sick that it was only a matter of time before I died (which very well may happen to a person like me, having diabetes), I would want to at least have the option to end my suffering prematurely. If overtly religious people believe that it is murder, then they don’t have to practice it. They have the right to preach their views as loudly as they please, but I don’t think that the law should have that much power over a person’s individual choice. But, as a Catholic, I do have the belief that life should be valued. If physician assisted suicide did become legal, it would have to be very specific about who would be eligible to receive it. It should also be discouraged, whenever possible, by the medical community. People seeking euthanasia should have a waiting period and counseling before they are approved, and doctors should not present it as a preferable option to treatment or palliative care. Life should always be preserved until the individual is able to make a completely informed choice (for example, an infant born with a defect should not be euthanized without having been given a chance to evaluate their own quality of life. They should be given any treatment necessary until they reach an age where they can fully understand the complexities of their situation, which can vary depending on the disease or deformity). But even though euthanasia should be avoided if possible, it should at least be acknowledged. Doctors who perform active euthanasia under the table are definitely cowards. The hypocrisy of it all almost negates the idea of a “dignified death” in the first place.

As Admiraal, Hill, and Kevorkian have proposed, the option for an “easy death” should be made available for anyone who has written an advanced directive or who has the ability to give informed consent. This is an issue that should not be mandated by the government-meaning that euthanasia should not be outlawed, but also that it should not be made mandatory. The fears that we would be going down a “slippery slope” to forcing any handicapped or ill people to be euthanized doesn’t seem very plausible in this country. People would instantly rise up against it and prevent it from happening on a large scale. Being someone who has an incurable, lifelong disease, I am completely against setting age caps for healthcare or having mandatory euthanasia for the “terminally ill” or disabled. However, I am also extremely uncomfortable with the idea of the government having so much power over my individual autonomy as to deny me the right to end my suffering in the manner I choose. Ultimately, I think it should be the choice of the individual whether to accept the help of a doctor in their pursuit of an easy, dignified death.