Danielle+On+Kevorkian+and+Euthanasia

Do We Have the Right to Die? In a world where logic and constitutionality prospers over compassion and emotion, it seems that there is one thing and one thing only that we have control over; our will to live. As human beings, we first enter this world with little control over our bodies and lives, but over time our experiences, knowledge and instincts become increasingly rational and valuable compared to those younger than us. It’s agreeable we all have the same right to life no matter your age, race or income, but why does all the sympathy and understanding get thrown out the window when euthanasia for the terminally ill is mentioned? As eighteen year olds in the United States we are legally an adult, which means we are old enough to handle things on our own and make our own rational decisions. Thus, we have the right to end our life no matter what, but especially in times of painful suffering. How and why can the government interfere with our decisions about our life when it isn’t even their business? “It is simply our decision and no one else’s (Foggo)”.

Euthanasia by definition means a mercy killing or allowing someone to die painlessly. It is imperative to first understand there are two categories of euthanasia; passive and active. The concept of passive euthanasia is generally accepted among the population because it doesn’t directly affect the condition of an ill person. Examples of passive euthanasia include disconnecting feeding tubes and respirators to let nature take its course. Active euthanasia also known as Physician assisted suicide is the act of physically helping a person to die which includes administering a bit more drugs than usual to a patient or letting them drink a chemical cocktail. The most famous person for challenging the distinction between these two ideas was Doctor Jack Kevorkian. Kevorkian believed that the continued denial of a good death to doomed human beings is a step backwards; a step away from a truly civilized society, so he did whatever it took to try and make assisted euthanasia legal. He video taped himself injecting a paraplegic with a shot to end his life and was taken to court for it just like he wanted. Eventually the case worked its way up to the Supreme Court and in 1997 the court ruled that Americans who want to kill themselves, but are physically unable to do so, have no Constitutional right to end their lives. After all his efforts, Kevorkian was sentenced to 10-25 years in prison and still has no regrets to this day. The reason so many people were against Kevorkian was because he, like in Romeo and Juliet, seemed to be romanticizing death. It had been perceived by many people that Kevorkian brought forth the message that death is good and ending your life is good. This impression didn’t go over so well with the traditional and extremely religious Evangelic Christians. As Evangelical doctor J.P Moreland puts it “According to the traditional view it is never appropriate to withhold ordinary treatment. Extraordinary treatment can be withheld.” There are two problems with this traditional way of thinking. Number one is, not everyone has the same stance on what tradition really is, therefore it wouldn’t be right to base our laws on what one group of people believe. Secondly, the “moral” reasoning behind their tradition is too questionable and debatable to treat it as if it’s the only right way of thinking. For example, people would think of “ordinary treatment” differently than Dr. Moreland does. Ill patients get injected with pain killer medications on a daily basis so technically doesn’t that make euthanasia by injection “ordinary treatment”? There is too fine of a line to distinguish between “tradition” and constitutionality. It has been noted that one of the major reasons they are so against euthanasia is because it interferes with “God’s Plans”. They believe that we should let nature take its course and embrace death when it comes. If this is true, then why do they believe in the practice of medicine, or doctors, don’t they tamper with god’s plans as well? If they strongly believe that we should let nature take it course, then would we need doctors to help us get better when we are sick or hurt? If there was a valid argument on their side, people would without a doubt agree with them, but the truth is, it is too close minded and inconsistent for the majority of us.

Imagine, you have just been diagnosed with a disease which is both incurable and unbearable. Your doctor has informed you of the future symptoms which include loss of appetite, muscle spasms, loss of brain cells and kidney failure. Before you know it your memory will be gone. As time goes on your symptoms will only worsen, leaving you to rely on other people to do simple everyday things. But at the end of your dark tunnel, there is a light, a bright light that leads to compassion and understanding and that place is called Dignitas. Dignitas is a euthanasia clinic in Switzerland that has given those terminally ill a chance to end their suffering. It is filled with comforting and intelligent doctors that understand the pain people can go through. Long time doctor, Piter Admaraal who works at Dignitas explains that “as doctors, we have two primary duties: to ensure the well-being of our patients and to respect their autonomy (Admaraal)”. He goes on to explain that their job entails restoring a patients health and when its not possible, doctors must relieve the suffering. “Suffering, loss of bodily control, and physical decline are subjective experiences, and nobody but the patient themselves are in a position to decide when enough is enough (Admaraal)”. This is particularly a good point, because most of us make decisions based on our own instincts and experiences and those who haven’t or don’t suffer from the pain of a terminal illness has no idea how devastating it can be. Thus, the patient and the patient only knows how much pain they can take and when they have lived their life to its fullest.

Other than the morality of this issue, there is some constitutionality involved as well. The eighth amendments prohibits and cruel and unusual punishment and some people say that letting or making someone painfully suffer when something could be done about it. In addition to this, the ninth amendment mentions enumerated or implied rights of the people and indirectly says that just because there isn’t a personal right directly stated in the constitution doesn’t mean you don’t get them. This has always been a problem because there are too many ways to interpret what are natural rights are. Everyone deciphers the Constitution differently which leaves many of our amendments to questionability. Some say we have the natural born right to life and respectively to death as well because they are connected. Last but not least the fourteenth amendment states “no state shall deprive any person of life, liberty or property”. Since this issue isn’t black and white to begin with, it is these kinds of statements that just increase the amount of gray area to the point where no one knows what our rights are. So, with that being said, there have been a number of cases testing the questionability of the constitution and its implied rights. Cruzan versus Missouri, Washington versus Glucksburg, and Gonzales versus Oregon and just a few cases that have made it up to the Supreme Court in the last few decades and yet euthanasia is still illegal. Obviously if there have been dozens of people trying to make the right to die a natural born right then there must be some logic behind it.

As citizens of the United States, we have been told from day one that we have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. My question is, why are their restrictions on a saying we are guaranteed to have in this country? The bottom line is, if ending your own life is pursuing your own happiness than let it be. If the intent of the person is to stop their suffering and leave this earth happily then no one should be allowed to hinder with that natural right to persue our happiness.