Katie+On+Kevorkian+and+Euthanasia

Informed consent is what separates a critical healthcare service from a potentially malicious murder attempt. As human beings, we have an inalienable right to choose our path in life, so why does it not coincide with the right to die? I believe the United States should follow the bold examples of Oregon and Washington and their right to die acts, because once any individual is in the utmost of agony and honestly cannot see any other option than suicide, they should be allowed--or rather assisted by a healthcare professional--to die with dignity. This choice is the patient’s alone, and cannot be dictated by any other force: not government, not religion, not activists, not family, not friends--no one but themselves. The right to die should be chosen solely by the individual.

However, some persuasive counterpoints have been made by scholarly individuals as well as some who even suffered with disabilities and disease. An article titled, “Declaration on Euthanasia,” explains the official Catholic stance on voluntary euthanasia. It states, “No one can make an attempt on the life of an innocent person without opposing God’s love for that person.” Also, “…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,” because it is a crime against life and an attack on humanity. With this logic, one could presume that the Catholic faith is strictly opposed to anything that interferes with God’s plan. Then, wouldn’t it also follow that medically prolonging a life can also be considered an interference? Even an attack on humanity? No, the Catholic Church accepts medical efforts. They believe only in a right to life, not death.

Alison Davis, a woman suffering from an irreversible physical disability known as spinal bifida, states her opinion in an articled titled “Right to Life of Handicapped.” Davis was born with the ailment and has learned to cope. Now 28 years old, she has attended ordinary school and university, gotten married, traveled the world, and is a full time activist for the defense of the right to life for handicapped people. She questions, “Who could say that I have no quality of life?” which she believes is the stance of those who agree with physician assisted suicide. By no means, does Davis have any reason to want to end her life, and she is a true role model for the handicapped portion of society. However, I don’t think she is an accurate representation of every handicapped individual. I also believe that being born with a disability and acquiring one later in life are two entirely different situations. The first person doesn’t know any different in life, whereas the latter has seen life at its fullest potential, and suddenly their world is completely taken out from under them.

Other people in similar situations as Davis, sometimes believe that the efforts of Doctors like Kevorkian who advocate in favor of active voluntary euthanasia are also taking part in some sort of vendetta against the handicapped, and want to “eliminate them from society,” which I believe is far from the truth.

In the case of Chris Hill and “The Note” which he wrote shortly before committing suicide, the permanent act is seen as mercy and relief. Hill too is handicapped, but unlike Davis, he wasn’t born that way, and had seen a great life previous to his disability. He states, “After my hang-gliding accident - how ironic that something I loved so much would destroy me so cruelly - tomorrows were nothing but a grey void of bleak despair.” Chris Hill had lived his life to the fullest, and after his accident, was paralyzed from the chest down. He claims that he has no regrets and only wants to die in peace after trying to hard to construct a new life for himself. But, that wasn’t enough, and he chose to end his life. Hill was clearly of sound mind and had though long and hard about his decision. It was his choice, and he should be supported by doctors across America. The fact is that it is not about undermining handicapped at all, its about choice and informed consent. The terminally ill and the depressed handicap should not have this right taken away.

Peter Admiraal, a Dutch doctor, tells of his experiences in a place where active voluntary euthanasia is legal and accepted. In his article, “Listening and Helping to Die: the Dutch Way” asserts an incredibly valid point that asserts his opinion, “To carry out euthanasia is an emotional and difficult decision. I have seen my patients as friends, and every time I was sad and satisfied after euthanasia: sad to lose a friend and satisfied that I could end the suffering of that friend." Dying in such a manner is a way to end suffering, not an act of malice.

Opponents of physician assisted suicide would argue that there is a “slippery slope,” accept that would ultimately send society into some terrible catastrophe in which patients to be killed against their will. But like Admiraal I refuse to accept that. A clear moral boundary can be defined at consent, “based on respect for the patient’s autonomy,” is the foundation of the legal framework that allows voluntary euthanasia in the Netherlands, and it has proved to do well. No patient has thus far, and probably never will, have their life cut short without an explicit request. Active voluntary euthanasia is simply an extension of a valuable health care service.