Caroline+On+Kevorkian+and+Euthanasia

John Locke  referred to it as a “natural right”, the Declaration of Independences calls it the “pursuit of happiness”, and in the medical field it is called patient autonomy. Advancing medical technologies has made possible the maintaining of life that has never existed in the past: patients are placed on ventilators, given feeding tubes, and medicated with the most advanced drugs of our time. These advancements have prolonged life to unnatural lengths and created the infinite shades of gray seen in the euthanasia debate. The questions regarding human euthanasia are “is it moral?” and “where do you draw the line?” These questions cannot be answered in a single sentence and the oversimplification of the issue does the immense conflict injustice. But I find that if a patient has decided that their own life is not worth living, and their circumstances meet the requirements, then they should be given the opportunity to explore their options. I strongly believe that physician assisted suicide should be made a legal option for those with terminal illnesses and severe physical disabilities out of respect for patient autonomy. Opponents to the physician assisted suicide measure argue that life has a preciousness that should not be disrespected. The Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith proclaims that life is a gift from God and that suicide in all forms is a crime against humanity. Yet it claims that taking medication for numbing pain, refusing treatment, and passive euthanasia (removing feeding tube, etc.) are all sacred modes for relieving pain or ending one’s own life. But active euthanasia, where the physician performs the operation, is considered a “crime of utmost gravity.” A suicide of any kind, including the one of a stable minded terminal patient suffering extreme anguish, is regarded as a “rejection of God’s sovereignty and loving plan” (Seper).

A woman who fights wholeheartedly against this “right to die” movement is Alison Davis, a 28 year old woman with myelomeningocele spina bifida. She works full-time defending the rights of handicapped people. She is frightened by those allying with physician assisted suicide because she feels that if it were in effect when she was born, she would have been terminated as an infant. She states, “Who could say that I have no worthwhile quality of life?” defending that her life has been fulfilling and prosperous. What Davis neglects to recognize is that patient consent is the only manner in which physician assisted suicide would be performed. By allowing those with severe physical disabilities an escape from a potentially life wrenching occurrence, does not suggest that the quality of life of those with disabilities is necessarily impaired. Many people immediately learn to thrive in their circumstances and have wonderful and fulfilling lives—just look at what Stephen Hawking has done! Patient informed consent is a critical element of physician assisted suicide and the termination of anyone against their will is a misguided judicial prediction.

Those in favor of physician assisted suicide argue that aiding in the death of a terminal or disabled patient is out of respect of the patient’s decision and is not performed out of malice of humanity or life itself. According to the proponents, the incredible power to take another human life is something that is based in the Hippocratic Oath and should be valued as a beneficial aspect of medicine. The phrase in the oath states, “It may also be within my power to take a life; this awesome responsibility must be faced with great humbleness and awareness of my own frailty.” A man by the name of Chris Hill understood that assisted suicide should be a viable option for releasing oneself from the shackles of one’s own body. Hill was paralyzed from the chest down and bitterly remarked in his suicide note, “people kill animals to put them out of their misery if they’re suffering even a tiny part of what I had to put up with, but I was never given the choice of a dignified death.” After living with his condition for some time, he found that his life was “a miserable existence, an awful parody of normalcy.” He believed that someone in his position should be given the option of taking away their own life because he suffered from extensive loss of quality of life as a paraplegic. It is his body, and ultimately his decision.

Pieter Admiraal, a Dutch doctor of nearly 40 years, shares this perspective. He believes that “to fail to practice voluntary euthanasia under some circumstances is to fail the patient” by not respecting their self-governance. He acknowledged that a request for euthanasia could also be a cry for help and suggested that palliative care and counseling should be administered before any considerations of euthanasia. Admiraal logically pointed out that a lengthy waiting period should be mandatory and that several people should be involved in making the final decision to respect the patient’s autonomy, deem them mentally unstable, or needing of additional counseling. He also had his patients’ best interests at heart and believes that simply having the option for an out gives many patients piece of mind: just knowing that they can end it all if their suffering becomes unbearable.

I support active euthanasia for those with terminal illnesses and less than a year to live, patients with physical (and maybe mental) disabilities, and anyone who can make a reasonable claim to impaired quality of life. There should be a waiting period for those considering ending their own lives, likely a few weeks or days for the terminally ill and a few months to a few years for the physically impaired. Legalizing suicide for these individuals does not suggest that they have a lower standard of living, and hence, possess less valuable lives. All that the legalization suggests is that living such a life is more painful or arduous and by no means degrades the meaning of life for those who find happiness in their disabilities or choose to live their lives to the end. Allowing the option of an out for those in severe pain, patients who want to end their lives in a “dignified” manner, and for those with lifestyle changing disabilities simply respects the will of the patient and their own autonomy.

The argument that makes me sick to my stomach (even more so than Dr. Kevorkian painting with his own blood) is the assertion that life is precious and must be valued. There is nothing I hate more than a sweeping generalization, not to mention one that is wholly flawed! The preciousness of life comes from owning your own destiny and preserving the right to choose! To disrespect the will of a stable-minded terminal patient is to disrespect the patient and their sovereignty. How dare we say that someone suffering from unimaginable anguish does not have the right to end it themselves?! Preventing progressive legislation because of religious beliefs is the kind of thoughtless absurdity is what prevents this country from moving forward and what stifles the rights of the individual. My life is mine, not the states’ nor the church’s. If anyone has femur-cracking bone cancer, they should have the right to end their lives prematurely and not have family members or medical staff prosecuted.

Eerie blood paintings aside, Dr. Kevorkian made many excellent points about patient autonomy. He acknowledged that euthanasia is not a preferred method of treating illness and that prior palliative care and counseling is absolutely required. A waiting period makes logical sense and restrictions on who can receive this “easy death” are necessary for law making (avoiding a “slippery slope”). Chris Hill found his life unbearable and decided that quality of life meant more to him than quantity of life. The United States is a democracy, not a theocracy; and the religious views of others should not be the dominating factor in this individual issue. When all is said and done, and the patient still desires an escape from their suffering, the will of the patient should triumph above all nonsense of “preciousness of life”. If you were lying in that hospital bed, wouldn’t you want the same respect?