Kaval+On+Kevorkian+and+Euthanasia

In the words of famous right to die activist Dr. Jack Kevorkian, “ My intent was to carry out my duty as a doctor, to end their suffering. Unfortunately, that entailed, in their cases, ending of the life” (Brainy Quote). The right to die, in many cases, is looked upon as a murderous and insane cause for a doctor to be actively supporting. For a certain type of doctors, death among their patients is a highly common occurrence. More specifically, doctors that specialize in terminal diseases must see patients wither to their deaths in extreme agony. When a patient is diagnosed with a terminal disease, it means that they have an incurable disease and will inevitably die. Upon diagnosis, the patient receives an expiration date where until then they must slowly die in many pains that cannot be suppressed. If a patient has been stamped with a death warrant, it is their right to choose the type of death they should receive. Whether they choose to go out naturally and uncomfortably or dignified and happily, it is their prerogative to have the decision. Though illegal in a majority of the United States, the right to die for terminally ill patients is constitutionally permitted and should be allowed to occur throughout the country.

In the eyes of the general populous, doctors are practitioners who heal and do what is best for each of their patients. Yet according to United State law, it is considered murder for anyone (even a doctor) to perform an act of mercy for a dying patient. Euthanasia, a procedure where the doctor himself injects the patient with a deadly cocktail is a very shady subject. Even with consent of a patient, it is unsure whether the doctor performed the act as a deed or persecution considering it is unknown whether the patient was coerced or had changed their mind last minute. A better form of euthanasia is Physician Aid in Dying, also known as PAD. Physician aid in dying is when a terminally ill patient requests for a lethal dose of medication from their physician (Braddock). When they receive their medication, it is up to the patient to take the lethal medication or not. This form of euthanasia is more reliable due to the fact that the patients have say in whether or not to take their own life.

PAD is an active form of euthanasia where specific measures are taken to end a patient’s life whereas passive euthanasia is naturally letting a patient die by removing medical instruments that keep them alive(Pregnant Pause). Passive euthanasia is the most inhumane way of dying besides dying from a terminal disease. By removing feeding tubes and air respirators, a patient must starve and/or suffocate to death. Oddly enough according to the American Medical Association, “ The principle of patient autonomy requires that physicians must respect the decision to forgo life-sustaining treatment of a patient…”. This means that the American Medical Association supports the inhumane passive euthanasia yet believes that, “Physicians have an obligation to relieve pain and suffering and to promote the dignity and autonomy of dying patients in their care” (AMA). Ironically, the American Medical Association believes that they should do what is best for their patients EXCEPT let them die through PAD.

Though PAD is not condoned by the American Medical Association, it is certainly a Constitutional right for terminal patients. Under the 9th amendment of the Bill of Rights, all powers not stated in the Constitution are therefore given to the people. Pertaining to the 9th amendment, the right to die is not in the Constitution thus is a right of the peoples. Taking this upon themselves, PAD is already permitted in Oregon, Washington and Montana. All other states that have not legalized PAD are in contempt of disregarding the Constitutional law of the United States of America.

In the Supreme Court case // Gonzales v Oregon //, Attorney General J. Ashcroft claimed that physician assisted death was in direct conflict with a controlled substances act. The court ruled that Ashcroft could not file against a medical practice because the intents were different (Oyez). Though PAD pertains to prescribing lethal doses of medication, it is not for the purpose of profiting from it. If so, the only person who would be profiting would be the terminally ill patient who is nearing death anyways. The lethal dosages of medicine are merely a shortcut for a terminal patient to a place they will go anyways.

Physician assisted suicide for patients should be legal not only because it is Constitutional, but because many doctors perform the acts of mercy for their patients behind close doors anyways. It is a universal fact the Dr. Jack Kevorkian openly practiced euthanasia, passive and active, for patients seeking an early death. Kevorkian publicly provided euthanasia services to 130 or more patients (Answers.com). Though Kevorkian practiced euthanasia openly, it must be done by other doctors but behind closed doors. The controversy of a doctor performing a life-ending deed is over their societal status. Medical practitioners are highly regarded as life-saving angels and are held on high pedestals in society because of so. If doctors were legally granted the right to provide physician assisted suicide for terminally ill patients, then they are as a result the bringers of death, i.e. the Angels of Death. The Angel of Death, who is extremely feared, would create a dark cloud above the pedestal medical practitioners are held upon. Paradoxically, doctors should be doing what is best for their patients and not for themselves yet are constantly trying to keep the sunshine on their backs.

According to the 1st amendment, it is permitted that any persons in the United States of America may practice any religion they choose to. While doing so, it is unconstitutional that extreme religious beliefs, such to that of the Catholics, must be forced upon others in the country. In many monotheistic religions, it is a sin to take one’s own life or that of another. This is a reason why though the country does not have an official religion, the philosophies of religions are present in the frame of the government. Publicly against euthanasia in any form, the Catholic Church states that, “ Everyone has the duty to lead his or her life in accordance with God's plan” (Seper). They are essentially saying that it is the will of God when a person shall face death and when it has been decided, everyone must live accordingly to so. The irony of religious claims that euthanasia is against God’s will can easily go both ways. Doctors administering vaccines, medication and cures is against the will of God because if someone is sick, it is not the human right to interfere with what God’s will has in store for the individual. Every act that a doctor does is against God’s will. Regardless of God’s will, it is an individual’s Constitutional right to believe in this God or not, and it is their Constitutional right to believe in these certain religious beliefs.

Ethically, it has been concluded that “it is ethical to withdraw nutrition and hydration from certain dying, hopelessly ill… patients” (Baird). Society has presented death, whether for mercy or not, to be an event that should be avoided at almost any cost. Society also has presented that the only way that a person may be permitted to die is through passive euthanasia. Though it does create an option out for the terminally ill, it is only giving them the right to choose the better of two terrible situations. Whether a person rather die from a terminal disease or starve an/or suffocate to death, it is up to them- but they should at least be offered the right to die peacefully. Sadly since the American society does not celebrate death and rather celebrate life, the chance that the basic right to die peacefully will ever happen nationally is slim.

The United States of America has a long way to go in order to make physician assisted suicide a national right for the terminally ill. Doctors who do not assist patients in PAD are doing a disgusting action for themselves rather than for their patient. Every patient has the right to do what they want with their body and if they chose to go out peacefully, then let them do so. The Constitution gifts rights to the people if not listed in there, therefore terminally ill patients do not need to fight for to end their lives. Doctors must take the first initiative to stand up for their patients. If doctors, one of the most influential groups of people, advocate for physician assisted death then not only are they doing what is best for their terminally ill patients, but they are more likely to influence the government. But unfortunately as Dr. Kevorkian states, “They are cowards. Doctors are cowards” (CNN).

Works Cited American Medical Association. “Policy Compendium”. // AMA. // American Medical Association National Advisory Council on Violence and Abuse, April 2008. Web. 20 November 2010. Answers.com. “Jack Kevorkian”. // Jack Kevorkian. //Web. 20 November 2010. Baird, Robert. “Euthanasia: The Moral Issues”. Prometheus Books, 1989. Print. 15 November 2010. Braddock, Clarence. “Physician Aid-in-Dying”. // Ethics in Medicine. // University of Washington School of Medicine, 25 October 2010. Web. 20 November 2010. Brainy Quote. “Jack Kevorkian Quotes”. // Brainyquote.com //. Brainy Quote, 2010. Web. 20 November 2010. CNN. “ Tea Party Tax Protests; Interview With Jack Kevorkian”. // ANDERSON COOPER 360 DEGREES  //. CNN.com, 15 April 2010. Web. 20 November 2010. Oyez. “Gonzales v Oregon”. // Oyez.org. //Oyez Supreme Court Media. Web. 20 November 2010. Pregnant Pause. “Types of Euthanasia”. // Pregnant Pause. //Pregnant Pause, 20 November 2001. Web. 20 November 2010.  Seper, Franjo Cardinal. “Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith Declaration on Euthanasia”. // NCBC. //National Catholic Bioethics Center, 5 May 1980. Web. 20 November 2010.