Rachael+On+Kevorkian+and+Euthanasia

Euthanasia in today's society, is portrayed as an easy way out for those less than able-bodied. Literally, euthanasia means "easy death," even though it is anything but. Euthanasia is one of the biggest controversies of the decade. With assisted suicide only legal in two states and a few European countries many doctors and disabled rights activists strongly oppose the idea of it ever being administered. Not only do doctors, along with the Catholic Church, feel that assisted suicide to terminally ill patients and the handicapped is a felony and a sin but it disregards and shuns the right and beauty to life. If euthanasia is legalized, they feel this slippery slope of killing will take away the preciousness that life has to offer each individual. Although having a dim hope in favor of assisted death becoming legal, I believe that this is a choice to be decided by the benefactor and no one else. Euthanasia does not suppress the handicapped, it simply gives another option when the weight of the world becomes too uncontrollable.

By code of the Catholic Church: suicide is a sin. It is taken that human life is a right that needs to be protected by all means necessary. By taking one's own life, or having a doctor take their patient's life, they are "opposing God's love for that person...and therefore committing a crime of the utmost gravity." Life is not only precious, but everything in God's plan is special for each person, even if he chooses to take them early. The Church believes, that just as Jesus Christ carried the burden of the world's sin, "everyone has the duty to lead his or her life in accordance with God's plan. That life is entrusted to the individual as a good that must bear fruit already here on earth, but that finds its full perfection only in eternal life." However, if a patient finds themselves terminally sick, they may no longer request extra care, such as feeding tubes or air machines, to prolong the inevitable death. No matter what age- young, old, sick, healthy, or handicapped, life is a right that no one will take away.

Disabled Rights Activists also believe that by allowing assisted suicide, the mass would seem to believe that handicapped people have a less valuable existence. Alison Davis, a patient born with severe spina bifida, explains that by legalizing euthanasia to handicapped babies, she would not have been alive. Every day she pushes through considerable pain, has undergone 20 operations, and is constantly being pushed in a wheelchair; but Davis feels her quality of life is no less than ordinary. She went to school, graduated from college with an honors degree in sociology, and has been happily married for over eight years. By her birth-doctor telling her parents to "go home and have another," Davis feels that the entire nation thinks down upon the handicapped, by giving babies with congenital defects the 28 day period title of 'non-person hood.'

To those that wish to live, fully capable as a handicapped person, this sounds like the only viable option. However, to those that experienced a tragedy after a full life, being handicapped and paraplegic is the worst possible outcome they could have imagined. In "The Note,"quadriplegic Chris Hill writes his last letter to family and friends, detailing why he decided to take his own life, even after five attempts with no success. Hill explains that after traveling his entire life, sitting in a bed for the remainder was no way to continue on. He had swam with dolphins in the Bahamas, rode through the sands of Egypt, attained two university degrees, ridden a motorcycle at over 265 km/h in Japan-- he had done more things than some experience in their lifetimes. So by being trapped within a body that was "three-quarters dead," Hill knew his life was no longer one he wanted to lead. Every day he was humiliated, tortured in agony, and could no longer do anything he had once taken for granted. At one point in his note, he explains how "every time [he] had to ask someone to do something for [himself], every time [he] was dragged up a damn step, [it] was like thrusting a hot blade into the place where [his] pride used to be." Even after he discussed his options with happily living quadriplegics, he realized that they were capable, but not one of them were inspiring. Hill felt the only option left was to take his own life, because active assisted suicide is not legal in Australia.

Hill, as well as many others who took their own lives or attempted to do so, were no longer able to see the glory and grace existence had once offered them. Although Hill was in favor of euthanasia, he had no intention of pushing his beliefs on another individual. That is what should be done for all terminal or handicapped patients. The hardest decision of one's life does not deserve to be made by someone else, because they aren't going through what the patient is. Luckily, there are those (although rough around the edges), like Dr. Kevorkian who see the power that doctors hold in the matter. Dr. K. was an activist in favor of assisted suicide who believed that doctors need to be there at all times for their patients, even when helping them end their pain. In the end, doctors are there to help suffering and pain, so why would they be against something that evidently helps? Dr. Death (as he was known) didn't believe in taking lives, he believed in the right to an honorable death, but only when his patients came to him asking for it. Not once did he go out looking for terminal patients, not any of the 130 that he helped to die. Even after the patients found him, Dr. Kevorkian would ask them to wait and think about the choice they were about to make, to sign multiple papers allowing his assistance, and to have absolute trust that what he was doing was helping those into an "easy death."

When discussing the matter of Euthanasia, I believe the decision should be solely left to the patient. Why should a doctor be able to keep someone alive, when they are unwavering in their choice to die? Why should a religious figure be able to tell a terminally ill patient that they are a sin against God if the struggle of life is too much anymore? While there is no stopping families and members of the community from voicing their opinions, I feel that this hard choice is too much for one deciding factor as a Doctor's Code or a religious stance. If the patient is religious, they can make their own peace with whichever lord they seek, but by telling someone they are a sinner headed for Hell if they wish to die? This is forcing someone to stay alive, eventually leaving them in their own personal Hell. If I had a life-damaging tragedy, I would not want to continue a life of constant torture. However, I would also be too afraid to take my life on my own.

The right to die should be given in all states to terminally ill patients, as well as those with crippling conditions such as quadriplegia or stage four cancer. This needs to be a right that doctors should uphold, as they are not only here to keep their patients healthy, but maintain their dignity. However, this hope is not ideal, forcing the courageous professionals to hide under the radar by “accidentally” giving too much morphine while everyone is out of the room. If we keep this act up, doctors can do so much better for their trusting patients. However, if we keep having loud-mouths like Doctor Kevorkian who broadcast live deaths in the chance that people will be understanding, then more and more doctors will shy away from helping those in need. If we keep the process of Euthanasia simple and down the middle of the road, then so many more patients will have the help they deserve. By keeping this rigorous decision to the patient alone, dignity may be restored and the depression rates among the ill and handicapped would possibly lessen.