The Right to End a Life
By Sage Wesenberg, Biochemistry, 2019
Dr. Jack Kevorkian was a doctor famous for performing acts of euthanasia on approximately 130 patients. He spent 25 years in prison for his actions that he called patholysis, or the destruction of suffering. Kevorkian developed machines that enabled his patients to commit suicide and end their pain and suffering.
As one might expect, his methods caused controversy, and, as a result, he landed in jail.
Some believed that if patients were too ill to commit suicide themselves then they should not be able to, even with the help of a doctor. Others considered his devices to be similar to those used for capital punishment, which were severe and in many states, illegal. The idea and controversy around euthanasia grew rapidly from publicity about Kevorkian’s work and today there are many opinions on the subject, as well as many different types of euthanasia itself.
Euthanasia must be broken down into several different subtypes and forms in order to be understood. Euthanasia is a Greek word that means “good death.” Today it has come to mean “mercy killing,” or ending life because there is too much pain and suffering from a chronic or terminal condition.
This form implies that a doctor is performing the act that is purposefully ending the life of a person by their request. The other form of this comes as physician-assisted suicide where the doctor is prescribing something, often a lethal dose of a drug, that will kill the patient; however, patients administer the drug themselves.
Another form of euthanasia is indirect. This occurs when a patient is given some treatment that will reduce their pain but also will speed their death. Since the primary intention is not to kill, this takes on the Doctrine of Double Effect. This is a common philosophical term that states that if doing something morally good (like reducing pain) has a morally bad side-effect (like hastening death), then ethically it has to be okay, as long as the negative side-effect was unintended.
Further, euthanasia can be either active or passive. Active euthanasia requires someone to directly cause the patient’s death, whereas passive euthanasia allows the patient to die indirectly, by omitting something; for example, ceasing to continue a lifesaving treatment.
Active euthanasia may be considered more moral than passive because it can happen quicker, and cleaner, with less pain. However, people often think of passive as being better than its counterpart. Is there a difference between carrying out an action and choosing not to carry out an action if they reach the same end result?
A very important part of the definition of euthanasia is that a person’s life is ending based on their request. The doctor is not supposed to have any say in the matter. Under this, euthanasia can either be voluntary or non-voluntary. Voluntary euthanasia occurs at the request of the patient who will die. If the patient is for some reason unable to make that decision, non-voluntary euthanasia allows for the appropriate person, such as a family member, to decide on the patient’s behalf.
So what about this process is right and what is wrong?
As a hugely controversial topic, there are many different opinions. There are three main arguments for the legalization of euthanasia.
The first one is rights based. Patients have the right to make decisions about how and when they should die according to self-determination rights and autonomy, but they also have the right to life decisions as long as they will not harm others.
The argument of beneficence (a term that describes a doctor’s goal as being the patient’s welfare, in any case) states that no patient should be allowed to suffer, and relieving patients of pain is more beneficial than harm that the relief causes. Mercy killing, therefore, should be permitted if it does this.
There is also the argument of active vs. passive euthanasia, stating that if passive killing is allowed, then active should be as well. Those who make this argument say there is no moral difference between killing someone and letting someone die, and that in fact, this makes active euthanasia more humanitarian.
While these arguments may make sense, there are also several arguments against the practice that seem to have just as much validity. The first, which holds a lot of religious support, is the sanctity of life. Those that use this argument believe that God created life, so He should be the one to cause death. This argument also posits that as well and, as a result, we must respect and preserve human life while we can.
Others see euthanasia as murder. They believe that no matter what, doing something with the intention to kill is wrong. Another argument is that it is an abuse of our human rights.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that everyone has a right to life which therefore cancels out a right to die, and that euthanasia may overall harm the common good. Treatments like palliative or comforting care also reduce the need for euthanasia; in most cases patients can be relieved of pain by measures that then make euthanasia seem unnecessary.
Another very important argument is that that argues for the rights of vulnerable patients. Many patients are unable to voice their opinions or needs, so if euthanasia became more widely accepted, there would be more potential for their rights to be ignored.
Finally, the doctor-patient relationship could be considered to be de-valued or ruined by euthanasia. Doctors build trust with their patients based on the fact that their job is always to help and save lives. Euthanizing patients promotes the opposite, and therefore, less trust.
Despite all the arguments, and the different types of euthanasia, it is so difficult to make a decision about what is right and wrong. States that allow some form of assisted suicide include Oregon and Vermont, while at least ten others have no law that would prevent it, including Massachusetts. On the other hand, some states believe causing or aiding suicide is an act of manslaughter. Others call it a separate and discrete offense. There are at least 25 states that currently criminalize any type or level of assisted suicide.
These laws do not stop the controversy and concern about euthanasia that takes place all over our country, perhaps quietly and behind closed doors.