JT+On+Kevorkian+and+Euthanasia

The world is always changing, and progressions in the medical field has given humanity a great number of previously unknown of concepts important consideration. What rights do animals have in comparison to humans? What to do of post-humanism movements? Yet at the current point in time, the most important of all of these is euthanasia. Advancements in medical technology enables us to keep alive patients who would normally die without direct intervention. The moral placement and legality of physician-assisted suicide has come to a head, and America may be forced to make a definitive, all-encompassing decision on the issue.

Whether it is necessarily the right thing to embrace euthanasia or not depends greatly on an individual’s moral inclinations and religious affiliations. Time and time again, the two largest groups most ardently in opposition to physician-assisted suicide are the American Medical Association and the Catholic Church. May doctors will most usually declare that the purpose of their medical practices is to save and protect lives, never to destroy them, whilst the Church insists the sacredness of life can be infringed upon by no one but their god. In the Vatican’s officially issued papal bull regarding euthanasia, Archbishop Franjo Seper makes the Catholic position on mercy-killing painfully clear: “For [euthanasia] is a question of the violation of divine law, an offence against the dignity of the human person, a crime against life, and an attack on humanity.” Absolutely no deviation is tolerated in their eyes; any desire to end one’s life, regardless of the pain and suffering one may be burdened by, is comparable to murder. The terminally ill and bedridden are even encouraged to embrace their misfortune and accept it as “sharing in Christ’s Passion”.

One of the strongest and most reasonable arguments against euthanasia is the simple matter of time. How much time is needed for deliberating the situation and coming to a rational conclusion an easy death? Can this decision be made within months, or does it require years of attempted adjustment to terminal/disabled life before one can rightfully decide? In the case of Daniel James, a young British rugby player who became quadriplegic and required 24-hour care, the decision to seek active euthanasia at Switzerland’s Dignitas was made in less than a year. In the eyes of Dr. Peter Saunders of the Care Not Killing Alliance, this choice was made far too hastily. “…[he] did not need help to kill himself: he needed help to live with severe disability… what is needed is a more positive outlook in caring for people’s physical and spiritual needs. People can come through these difficulties.” This demand for a “grace period” spanning several years ensures that no hasty decisions for euthanasia are made without the proper forethought.

Yet euthanasia activists are not without point and purpose. Consider Chris Hill, who presents a very important juxtaposition of his pre- and post-disabled life. Before, he was a true adventurer with a lust for life, yet the toll of his hangliding incident was immense. Left paralyzed from the chest down, he exemplifies the traditional image of a handicapped person asking for euthanasia: incontinent, unable to move and left physically disconnected from the world. Imagine coping through years of immobile torment, in a life that is but a pale shadow of everything you once knew. Hill writes in his suicide note “Everything I saw and did was a stinging reminder of my condition and I cried constantly… I never imagined that somebody could hurt so bad…” Hill makes it clear that he indeed tried to accept his new means of existence, but he was unable to make it work for himself. “It’s a challenge, many of you said. Bullshit. My life was just a miserable existence, an awful parody of normalcy. What’s a challenge without some reward to make it worthwhile?” For Chris Hill, that reward was his taking of his own life.

In direct support of Hill’s choice stands Pieter Admiraal, doctor of forty years, a proponent of active euthanasia and physician assisted suicide, practicing in the Dutch city of Delft. It is argued that a “slippery slope” of loosening definitions on who can be euthanized poses a threat to nations that legalize medical mercy-killings, which Admiraal openly rejects. “I do not accept that there is a slippery slope,” he claims, while holding patient autonomy as the most important aspect to physician practice, next to the well being of the patient. Just as it is immoral to force a terminally ill person to die against their will, Admiraal finds it improper to force a terminally ill person to live against their will. Admiraal believes that ceasing pain and suffering with active euthanasia, “is but one more way of delivering humane medical care.”

Kevorkian insists on using specific medical terminology for his attempts at introducing physician-assisted suicide, and I find that this detail very important when analyzing his positions. The doctor refers to the method as "Patholysis". The destruction of suffering. He is not trying to murder a person, or even let someone die through natural terms, but merely end the suffering that outweighs the benefits of life for certain patients. By insisting upon using legitimately medical terms for euthanasia, it demonstrates his main purpose behind all the controversy he stirs up: euthanasia should be a legal, physician assisted, regulated and enacted medical practice! It should not be direct suicide, nor indirect death by the hands of a machine. After a great deal of consideration, deliberation and supervision to ensure that it is the right decision to enact, a doctor should be able to legally end a patient's suffering. A patient's life, yes.

I strongly believe that physician-assisted euthanasia for terminally ill patients (and a few others as well) is something that should be encouraged and made a legal medical option. Although there is indeed a slippery slope present (it certainly doesn’t extend as far as patients being terminated against their will), with close regulation it will not be a problem. Respect for death is just as important as respecting life, so if a mentally sound terminal or disabled patient wants to end the suffering of their life, they have the autonomy do so. It is only man-made laws that interfere with it, not a lack of the actual right to control one’s life. I also have come to the conclusion that making a distinction between terminally ill patients and handicapped persons is extremely important. Anyone facing inevitable, painful death within a few years has a right to euthanasia, yet those with handicaps must be considered on an individual basis. How long have they been handicapped? Have they given adequate time to adjust to the changes in their life? The decision to let a doctor peacefully end your life must not be given away freely, so intense deliberation is necessary beforehand. Jack Kevorkian’s efforts to introduce physician-regulated euthanasia is massively important and should be supported, however difficult this is for physicians to do. Getting the ball rolling for euthanasia legislation is near-impossible due to so many doctors preferring to practice illegally and not openly admit to it.

Euthanasia is a tricky topic, but I believe that the best way to view it is with these three concepts always in mind: patient autonomy, deliberating the situation before plunging into death, and hope for recovery. Eligibility for physician-assisted suicide should be based on individual cases, considering all of these factors. Any person suffering from a terminal disease has the right to choose a dignified death rather than suffer the consequences of life. Although something as drastic as legalizing euthanasia is a controversial topic which would require a great deal of debate and consideration (such as whether non-terminal patients are eligible, etc), it represents a freedom that we all should have, and is a goal in the medical world worth fighting for.