In the UK today, around three quarters of deaths are ‘predictable’ and follow a periodic trend of chronic illnesses such as cancer or heart diseases. It was found from the survey of general practitioners that 63%of deaths in England involved an ‘end of life decision’ by a medical practitioner. The extent to which people should have control over their death or another’s death is highly controversial. Euthanasia and assisted suicide arouses deep moral beliefs about the value of life that are held by society.
This work will focus on end of life, euthanasia and assisted suicide in relation to Sarah’s request to her husband and her GP Dr Grace and the possible legal consequences. It will also consider the ethical issues involved such as autonomy, paternalism, sanctity of life versus quality of life, utilitarianism, deontology and the slippery slope doctrine.
End of Life
Everyone has the right to good palliative care as he/she approaches the end of life so as to control physical pain and offer psychological, social and spiritual support. As defined by the World Health Organisation (WHO), palliative care is ‘an approach that improves the quality of life of patients and their families facing the problem associated with life-threatening illness, through the prevention and relief of suffering by means of early identification and impeccable assessment and treatment of pain and other problems, physical, psychosocial and spiritual’.
Patients approaching the end of life have advanced and incurable conditions like cancer, motor neurone diseases, etc and acute conditions caused by sudden disastrous events. The provision of treatment and care towards the end of life often involve clinically complex and emotionally distressing decisions involving ethical issues and uncertainties about the law. In Ms B v An NHS Trust, the court granted Ms B’s request not to be kept artificially alive by the use of a ventilator. These decisions may include whether they wish to participate in medical research or they want a life saving treatment. In order to make an informed decision, the person making the decision must understand the reality of the situation and the consequences of their actions.
In situations where there is the likelihood that a person’s capacity to consent may be affected in future, they can set up an advance decision. As provided by section 24(1) of the Mental Capacity Act 2005, an advanced decision spells out the treatments and procedures that the patient consents to and those that are against their wishes. The Act further provides that any adult who has mental capacity can choose a personal welfare lasting power of attorney who will decide on their future medical treatment if they do not have the mental capacity to do so. The attorney may discuss about treatment options but cannot request for treatment that is clinically inappropriate. The advance decision must be valid and applicable. Once there is any doubt about this decision, the case can be sent to the Court of Protection (the legal body that supervises the Mental Capacity Act 2005).
The fact that Sarah was in the last stages of motor neurone disease meant that she may be experiencing shortness of breath and paralysis which she did not want her family to witness.
Most people with motor neuron diseases like Sarah may think about ending their life at some point but it is not a common outcome especially in cases where there is a strong family and community support.
Legal Position of End of Life Issues
An act which causes death would be murder and an omission could be murder or manslaughter depending on whether or not there was a duty to continue with treatment. This was assessed by Bolam Test in the Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee case. Thus a doctor may face criminal prosecution in situations where he owes a duty to the victim but fails to act accordingly. In R (Jenkins) v HM Coroner for Portsmouth and South East Hampshire, however, it was held that no crime was committed if help was not offered to a dying patient who categorically refuses medical intervention. A doctor will not breach his duty by failing to provide treatment if a competent patient does not approve the treatment. In the case of Ms B v An NHS Trust, doctors refused to switch off the ventilator that kept her alive for ethical reasons, despite being pronounced capable of making a decision on whether or not to continue her medical treatment. It has been argued that a competent person will never refuse basic care and for a person to be denied this, amounts to torture and inhumane treatment under Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). Furthermore, if the treatment is not in the best interest of the patient, a doctor is not required to do so as shown in Airedale NHS Trust v Bland. Here, a court order was granted for the withdrawal of treatment for Bland because he was in a persistent vegetative state and there was no hope of recovery. It is important to note that in this case the medical treatment was not against his best interest but it did not promote them.
It is clear from Sarah’s case that she was experiencing excruciating pain and suffering and did not want to lose her dignity or have her family witness her final months. Although there is no cure for motor neurone disease, medical treatment can help relieve the symptoms and slow down the progression of the condition. Sarah is not likely to succeed with her request even if she should take the matter up legally as the treatment she is being given will help reduce the symptoms.
Also, under sections 24-26 of the Mental Capacity Act 2005, once an incompetent patient has issued an effective advance directive stating that he does not want to receive life-sustaining treatment; it would be unlawful for the medical team to administer treatment. In Re XB, the judge held that XB had capacity to create the advance decision and that it follows the formalities in the Mental Capacity Act 2005. Most people with motor neurone disease prepare an advance decision. Sarah has the option of preparing an advance decision stating the kind of treatment she would like to receive in the very final stage of her disease.
Euthanasia is an exceedingly controversial and divisive topic, which raises an array of complex ethical, social, moral, legal and religious concerns. It generally means the voluntary ending of a person’s life to ease incurable and excruciating pain. Euthanasia is illegal in England and is treated under UK law as either murder or manslaughter depending on the circumstances. In certain cases it results in a mandatory life sentence. Euthanasia can be classified in different ways according to whether the patient gives an informed consent. These are voluntary, non-voluntary and involuntary euthanasia. These can also be divided into passive or active euthanasia. Active euthanasia occurs when a medical professional or another person’s deliberately intervenes to end the patient life, for example injecting them with large doses of painkillers or sedatives. Passive euthanasia occurs when the patient dies because the medical professionals withheld or withdrew treatment such as life support machines, ventilators, etc, that is necessary to keep the patient alive.
For the purpose of the discussion of this case, I will focus on voluntary and active euthanasia. Voluntary euthanasia occurs where the patient makes an informed decision to die and asks for help to do so. Active euthanasia is however classed as a criminal offence of assisted suicide regardless of the patient’s consent for the act to take place whilst voluntary euthanasia is considered as either voluntary manslaughter or murder depending on the circumstances. In R v Cox, Dr Cox agreed to Mrs Boyes’ persistent request for voluntary active euthanasia and administered a lethal dose of potassium chloride to her. Dr Cox was charged with attempted murder. Similarly if Dr Grace or Sarah’s husband agrees to her request, they could be charged with murder or manslaughter.
Although an attempt to take one’s life is not a criminal act, under section 2(1) of the Suicide Act (1961), assisted suicide is illegal and is punishable by up to 14 years imprisonment. Section 2(4) of the Act also states that, ‘…no proceedings shall be instituted for an offence under this section except by or with the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions.’ Assisted suicide can be described as the act of intentionally assisting or encouraging another person to take their life. For a person to be guilty of this offence, he must intend to assist or encourage another person to commit suicide.
In every case involving physician assisted suicide, a doctor who gives drug to a patient in order to kill him has direct intent even if the doctor had good reason to end the patient’s pain. Where a doctor administers pain-relieving drugs to a patient with the aim of relieving pain but was aware that the drugs would shorten the patient’s life, the jury may find intent. However from most reported cases of doctors charged with murder or administering pain-relieving drugs, judges avoid giving direction on oblique intention as stated in criminal law.
After the House of Lords decision in R v Purdy, the Crown Prosecution Service produced a list of factors to consider when deciding which case of assisted suicide to prosecute. These factors explain that suspects would not be charged unless evidence shows that the victim was forced into killing themselves or that the suspect intends to profit from their death. Since 2010, numerous assisted suicide cases have been passed to the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) of which no one has been prosecuted. A small number of files are however being reviewed. The need to amend these factors became eminent following the case of R (Nicklinson) v Ministry of Justice. Here, the Court of Appeal explained that it is wrong to say that there is a right to commit suicide.
If Sarah’s doctor should assist her to die, she would be held liable for her death and may face imprisonment. On the other hand, if Sarah’s husband should assist her die, he must be able to prove based on the CPS guidelines that he will not profit from Sarah’s death.
The Human Rights Act 1998
The Human Rights Act 1998 integrates the rights under the ECHR and requires all public authorities including the NHS to observe these rights and duties when making decisions about patients. Decisions regarding end of life issues of patients must be made in a fair, transparent and justifiable way as the Act allows consideration of a decision and the decision-making process by the courts. The Human Rights Act and the ECHR may recognise a person’s right to life however does not recognise their right to death. Articles 2, 3,5,8,9 and 14 of ECHR are the most relevant to decisions regarding care and treatment towards the end of life of a patient.
In R (Purdy) v DPP, it was held that a decision to commit suicide can fall within the scope of Article 8 of the ECHR which protects the right to respect for private and family life. Article 8(2) of the ECHR also provides that:
‘There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic wellbeing of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others’.
Public authorities therefore have an obligation to prevent people from committing suicide. In R (Pretty) v DPP, Diane Pretty who suffered motor neurone disease wanted to end her life due to the pains and suffering she endured because of her illness. She used the Human Rights Act 1998 to argue that the Director of Public Prosecutions should promise not to sue anyone who helped or assisted her to die. The case was however rejected by the House of Lords. In a judicial review of this decision at the ECtHR, Pretty v UK, relying on the Convention rights, the court rejected the argument that the ECHR provided a right to die. It was held that Article 2 impressed a duty on the state to protect life. She also used Article 3 to argue that by forbidding her husband to help her die; the state was imposing torture and degrading treatment on her. The ECtHR however, held that her medical condition was not caused by the state and it was the medical condition which imposed the degrading treatment. The Court considered that interference of Ms Pretty’s right to respect private life under Article 8 of the Convention rights was justified as it protects the rights of others in a democratic society.
Based on Ms Pretty’s case, the state has a duty to protect life which includes Sarah and since her medical condition was not caused by the state, Article 3 of the Convention rights is not being violated. If Sarah’s doctor or her husband should go ahead and assist Sarah in dying, then under the guidelines from the CPS, they will both be liable for manslaughter and risk facing imprisonment.
The key ethical aspect to proponents of euthanasia is autonomy. This is simply a person’s freedom to lead their lives and have control over their own bodies as they wish. The ultimate denial of respect for a person is denying that person respect for his views. Such respect is very vital especially when it concerns personal and intimate matters such as when to die.
Those who oppose euthanasia argue that there are other principles that needs to be weighed against autonomy such as the patient’s right to die must be balanced against the interest of the society, and concerns that this may threaten the right to life of other patients like the elderly, disabled and gravely ill who do not want to die. Also there are moral values that balance the autonomy right which should be upheld by the law even if it infringes on the autonomy rights of members of the society. They also argue that it is impossible to make an informed autonomous choice to die as most patients are often unaware of the availability of rehabilitative care for people with disabilities and terminal illness and so are unable to make properly informed decisions. There are a range of treatments available that can relieve most of the symptoms of motor neurone disease and with the right medication the disease can be controlled and Sarah can have the best quality of life. Many of those seeking death suffer depression and once provided with medication for depression, their number falls. Similarly, about 15% of motor neurone disease cases are known to be linked to a type of dementia (affects personality and behaviour). Hence these autonomous decisions are not carefully thought-out.
Others argue that it is impossible to justify euthanasia using autonomy. This is because autonomy gives people the freedom to live and develop the kind of life they wish whilst euthanasia ends a person’s life. Most supporters of euthanasia do not agree that anyone who wishes to be killed should be allowed to do so. However, they respect the wishes of a person only if they think his decision is reasonable.
This doctrine holds that an act is right or wrong based on whether it maximises happiness or benefit the society. In euthanasia cases, the focus is not entirely on the patient as other people like the relatives may be affected by the patient’s decision. Even if the patient’s decision would be in his best interest, it is may be wrong due to the terrible effect it may have on the relatives. Utilitarianism would however recommend euthanasia if the relatives agree with patient’s decision. This means that euthanasia or assisted suicide is morally accepted under this doctrine once Sarah’s husband or any of her relatives agrees to it.
Paternalism can be said to be the forceful intervention to the behaviour of a person or group which limits their freedom for their own good. The paternalism approach to patients is barely practised in modern medicine. Alternatively, there’s a mutual decision-making between the doctor and patient with the patient making the final decision on treatment options. Under this doctrine, Sarah with the help of her Doctor could decide on the best possible treatment available so she can live comfortably.
Paternalism tends to deny individual autonomy. A hard form of paternalism promotes coercion to protect able adults against their voluntary self-harming decisions like active voluntary euthanasia. Hence, this doctrine will morally protect able patients like Sarah from active euthanasia and assisted suicide.
The doctrine of deontology holds that some acts are always wrong even if they achieve ethically worthy ends. This includes killing of human beings, lying and not keeping promises. It makes no ethical distinction between murder and suicide. Some killings of human beings are morally accepted provided it was not intended. For instance, the death of the patient is foreseen and not a desired outcome if he dies after being given a painkiller. This may be morally accepted as the intention is to kill the pain and not the patient. This doctrine however prohibits the situation where a patient can ask a doctor or family to actively and intentionally kill them or assist them in dying.
Depending on religious beliefs, it may be ethically right or wrong under this doctrine for Sarah’s doctor or husband to assist her in committing suicide.
Sanctity of life versus quality of life
Sanctity of life values the good of life which exists in a person independent of any disability. As argued by Craig Paterson, ‘It is always and everywhere wrong to kill an innocent person regardless of any further appeal to consequences or motive.’ The House of Lords select Committee on Medical Ethics stated that the ban on intentional killing was ‘the cornerstone of law and of social responsibility’. This principle is supported by both religious groups who believe that each person is made in the image of God and non religious groups who are drawn by its insistence of the equal value of every human life. Supporters of sanctity of life argue that life is valuable and that people cannot be treated like goods that have passed their ‘sell by’ date. The principle of sanctity of life has been approved by the judiciary and this was demonstrated in Airedale NHS Trust v Bland. The opponents also stress that the things that make life valuable are what people do with their lives.
Quality of life however, holds that some lives are just not worth living and is therefore right to end them. This principle dismisses the ‘sanctity of life’ approach and claims that it is a person’s experiences and relations with others that make life good. Therefore a life without these values has lost its goodness. Based on this doctrine, Sarah may argue that since she would be experiencing severe pain during the final stages of her illness she should be assisted to die.
The slippery slope doctrine
From the euthanasia debate, the slippery slope argument claims that if society accepts certain practices like voluntary euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide, a line is crossed and a dangerous precedent could be set. This means that if society should legalise voluntary euthanasia, it will gradually include non-voluntary and involuntary euthanasia.
The opponents of this doctrine argue that a well drafted legislation can draw a firm wall across the slippery slope. Once the law is changed and voluntary euthanasia is legalised, it cannot be controlled. Proponents of euthanasia however, argue that euthanasia would never be legalised unless there is proper regulation and control mechanisms in place. Those people, who are very ill and need constant care or those with severe disabilities, may feel pressured to ask for euthanasia so they do not become a burden on their family. Also research into palliative treatments may be discouraged, and this may prevent the discovery of cures for people with terminal illnesses. Opponents also argue that cost-conscious doctors are more likely to carry out their patients’ requests for death. It was found in a 1998 study that cost-conscious doctors who ‘practice resource-conserving medicine’ are more likely to prescribe a lethal prescription for terminally-ill patients.
Several attempts have been made over the years to legalize euthanasia and assisted suicide but none have proven successful. The balance between ethical views and belief systems versus legal system is difficult to reconcile and may result in the implementation of the slippery slope doctrine. Autonomy and various human rights impose limits on euthanasia and assisted suicide thus impinging on other human rights and protecting the poor. Furthermore, with the advancement in palliative care and mental health treatment, patients are less likely to suffer unbearably and given the right care in a safe environment, a patient can have a dignified and less painful natural death.
Considering all these and the fact that Sarah is not in a persistent vegetative state as in the Bland case, Dr Grace was right to refuse to assist her die. Her husband on the other will be held liable for her death if he should assist her die.
Free Essay on Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia - Playing God
- Length: 1270 words (3.6 double-spaced pages)
- Rating: Excellent
Playing God: A Role That Shouldn't Be Cast
All humans will die. Approximately 2,155,000 people from the United States will die in one year. In the United States, during the year of 1989, 34% of all deaths were caused by heart disease, 23% caused by cancer, 6% by strokes, and 2.2% by accidents involving motor vehicles. In that same year, 5.5% of the deaths were caused by medical negligence and suicide (Leading causes). This does not take into consideration the number of people who were killed by assisted suicide and euthanasia. Passive euthanasia is described as the intentional discontinuation, by the patient's physician, of vital treatment that could prolong the person's life. Assisted suicide occurs when a health care worker provides a patient with tools and/or medication that will help the patient kill him or herself, without the direct intervention of the care provider. Active euthanasia takes place when the doctor is responsible for the killing of the patient; for example, when the doctor administers a lethal injection (Schofield, 25). Active euthanasia is illegal in the United States. Only three states have legalized assisted suicide and only Oregon permits physician-assisted suicide. Thirty-five states, including Colorado, have statutes criminalizing assisted suicide and nine states criminalize assisted suicide through common law (Assisted suicide laws). In addition to active and passive euthanasia there are three other categories of euthanasia: voluntary, nonvoluntary, and involuntary. Voluntary, there is written or spoken consent from the patient; nonvoluntary, the patient can not voice his or her opinion because of unconsciousness or comatose; and involuntary, which goes against the wishes of the patient, and constitutes murder (Schofield, 26). Assisted suicide and euthanasia, in any form, are murder.
"People are stewards, not owners, of the life God has entrusted to them" (Vaticana, 550). To decide if euthanasia is wrong, one must first decide whom life belongs to. The Bible says, "In God's hand is the life of every living thing and the breath of all mankind" (Job 12:10). Life belongs to God and since God gave life to the human race, God should decide when it is time to take life. Also, the fifth commandment says, "Thou shall not kill." Assisted suicide and euthanasia disobey this commandment.
Supporters of euthanasia argue that the First Amendment "forbids the establishment of religion" and therefore one can't say life belongs to God. However, in the case of Bowers versus Hardwick in 1986, the Supreme Court ruled "that citizens in a democracy may vote away individual rights, even if that vote is based ultimately on nothing but religious faith" (Bowden).
How to Cite this Page
| Essay about Euthanasia: Humans Playing God - Euthanasia refers to the exercise of deliberately ending the life of a patient suffering from a chronic and excruciating disease or in an unalterable coma. Euthanasia, infanticide and suicide were practiced in the 5th century up to the 1st century before Christ. Euthanasia comes from the Greek words, “Eu” as in good and “Thanatosis” as in death. Euthanasia is sometimes addressed as “assisted suicide”. Some countries have adapted euthanasia as a legal death sentence to one’s self such as Belgium, and Luxembour; whereas in other countries it is strictly forbidden.... [tags: Argument Against Assisted Suicide]|
:: 9 Works Cited
|Essay on Euthanasia and Physician-Assisted Suicide: Nice Words for Murder - Increasingly, in the courts and the media and in conversation, we are hearing about euthanasia and the so-called "right to die." It's time we all are fully informed about what is going on, and what the appropriate response should be. Euthanasia is not a future problem. It is a present problem. It is happening now and becoming increasingly accepted. And we are asleep, not realizing that the road we are on will lead to the massive elimination of the elderly and "incompetent," and anyone else considered to be a burden to society.... [tags: Euthanasia Physician Assisted Suicide]||2066 words|
|Euthanasia Essay - The Need for Physician Assisted Suicide - The Need for Physician Assisted Suicide Man is born with death in his hand. We all will die. We may be able to postpone death but we cannot avoid it. We all die of something, somewhere, somehow. Although we cannot avoid death, we can control the death caused by a terminal illness. We can determine how, when, where, and with whom we die. Right now at this time, there are over 10,000 patients in the United States that are in a permanent vegetative state. Also there are thousands of handicapped infants born each year.... [tags: Free Euthanasia Essay]||1521 words|
| Essay about Assisted Suicide: Mercy or Murder? - “If you truly believe in the value of life, you care about all of the weakest and most vulnerable members of society.” This thought-provoking quote by Joni Eareckson Tada conveys a sense of obligation held by society to take up the roles of caretakers for the ones that cannot aid their own health. In the relativity of physician-assisted suicide, the word “care” in the previous statement is defined by helping those in need, in this case, pertaining to health issues with a potentially terminal outcome.... [tags: euthanasia, the right to die]|
:: 8 Works Cited
| Reasons for the Legalization of Physician-Assisted Suicide in the United States - Euthanasia is defined by the Merriam-Webster online dictionary as “the act or practice of killing or permitting the death of hopelessly sick or injured individuals (as persons or domestic animals) in a relatively painless way for reasons of mercy.” There are several different types of euthanasia in existence today. Active euthanasia is specifically causing a person to die by certain means, such as a drug injection of a lethal dose. Passive euthanasia is intentionally letting a person die by withholding means of life support, such as a feeding tube or ventilator.... [tags: Euthanasia Essays]|
:: 9 Works Cited
| Essay on Assisted Suicide - The majority of people in the world probably don’t like to think about their own death, for good reasons I’d imagine. As adults, we are aware that we’ll one day have to face our own mortality. Nobody lives forever. For millions of people diagnosed with terminal illnesses each year, facing your mortality can come much sooner than expected. These people struggle to accept the diagnosis they have been given, many fight their illness in whichever ways they can for as long as possible, and likely suffer with much pain -- physically, emotionally, and mentally.... [tags: euthanasia, terminal illnesses, medical assistance]|
:: 4 Works Cited
|Euthanasia Essay - Let Them Die! - Euthanasia - Let Them Die. Euthanasia is one of society's most widely and hotly debated moral issues. It has pained and exhausted the courts for entirely too long, questioning the ethics and morality of the issue. It is a never-ending loop that by no means considers our right, or the victim's right, to freedom. It has pierced the pocket books of American taxpayers extensively and should be put to rest with only this statement. Let them die. I believe that euthanasia is only debated and kept on the political agenda to keep the courts busy, thereby ensuring the security of political pocket books.... [tags: Euthanasia Physician Assisted Suicide]||1567 words|
| Physician Assisted Suicide Essay - Dr. Braddock and Dr. Tonelli use Aristotelian rhetoric in their article titled, “Physician Aid-in-Dying: Ethical Topic in Medicine.” The authors provide examples of logos by providing statistics about physician assisted suicide. In the article you will find pathos that will offer different emotions within the topic. These authors have many ethos or many years of credentials within the medical field. In this article, Dr. Braddock and Dr. Tonelli explain the difference between physician assisted suicide and euthanasia.... [tags: Moral Issues]|
:: 4 Works Cited
| Society’s View on Abortion, Euthanasia and the Death Penalty Essay - When it comes to the issues of dying by abortion, euthanasia or the death penalty society views each issue passionately. As we look at the issues and as the circumstances change, society will dictate how it reacts. When it comes to abortion there are two complex opposing groups, pro-lifers and pro-choicers, each group think that their position is the right position. The pro-lifers argues that abortion is not acceptable, because the fetus a viable human being, having a distinctive life of its own, to have an abortion is deliberately taking a life and that is murder.... [tags: Abortion, Euthanasia, Death Penalty]|
:: 1 Works Cited
|Euthanasia Essay - Euthanasia, People should be able to take there own lives The beliefs and views of our country are hypocritical and unjust. As we grow from a young child to a mature adult, we are taught many things such as that killing another human being is wrong, it is against the law and goes against most people's religious beliefs. Yet, there are some instances when this rule does not seem to apply. If someone kills another in self-defense it is seen as an act of bravery, if a soldier kills an enemy in war it is seen as courageous and honorable.... [tags: essays research papers]||1391 words|
Playing God Assisted Suicide Euthanasia Motor Vehicles Active Euthanasia Common Law Involuntary Injection Lethal
This ruling provides the proof necessary to establish the possibility for there to be a religious influence on laws, even laws criminalizing euthanasia and assisted suicide.
Legalization of voluntary euthanasia could mean legalization of nonvoluntary euthanasia and possibly of involuntary euthanasia. Ex-governor of Colorado Richard Lamm said that the "terminally ill elderly have a duty to die and get out of the way" (Johansen). This is a dangerous attitude to have. When the value of the human life is lost and when family, doctors, and society start to judge the value of a person's life, then the right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" is invalid. Terminally ill people who are seeking euthanasia as a solution to their problems should not be encouraged to end their life but rather to focus on the small blessings of it. Some families consider ill relatives as an added pressure. One theologian notes, "There is a growing tendency to view death as good and life itself as a burden," (Low, 41).
Many people who ask to be euthanized are under the influence of depression. Depression is treatable and reversible, death is not. In one study of people who wanted to commit suicide, 24% wanted to die because of a terminal illness. 100% of the patients with terminal illness had clinical depression. Patients with clinical depression are not fully capable of coming to a rational conclusion about their death, because their mind is clouded with mixed emotions (Key points).
People in favor of assisted suicide and euthanasia defend the patients by saying they are depressed because of their illness. Some families feel like the patient deserves help so he or she can be put out of their misery. The terminally ill and depressed need to be cared for by their loved ones. In a study done one year after the law allowing physician-assisted suicide in Oregon was passed, suicide patients "were several times more likely to be divorced or never married" (Shapiro, 56). The absence of a supportive care giver could have made the significant difference between life or death for these patients.
All doctors are required to take the Hippocratic Oath before they can practice medicine. By this they swear to "please no one will they prescribe a deadly drug, nor give advice which may cause death," and they will always "prescribe regimen for the good of their patients" (Chung). If doctors swear they will at all times work their hardest to do good for their patients; and some doctors are euthanizing their patients, then people begin to be afraid to trust their doctors. Without a strong trust between the patient and the doctor, the entire medical practice can not perform to its highest ability.
Some who believe euthanasia and assisted suicide are beneficial say that the Hippocratic Oath should be modified so that the doctors can euthanize their patients at their request (Schofield, 26). Until, however, there is a change to the Hippocratic Oath, doctors must stand by their word, because that is all the patients have to go on.
Proponents of euthanasia say that people want to die because they fear the pain that will accompany their illness. They also say pain is incurable, because patients only get addicted to their pain medication. However, only one person, in an Oregon study, used fear of pain as their reason for wanting suicide (Shapiro, 56). There is always a chance of an incorrect diagnosis or the discovery of a treatment which will allow partial or complete recovery. If a person is seeking to kill him or herself through a doctor, maybe the patient should be finding a doctor more qualified at alleviating pain rather than a doctor who is willing to assist suicide.
There are many factors which confirm that assisted suicide and euthanasia are murderous acts. The value of life should be determined by the individual, but death should occur naturally and not be imposed. "Killing, whether it be called 'aid-in-dying' or any other name, is still killing and no law can make it right" (Introduction, 13).
"Assisted Suicide Laws State By State." November 17, 1999. [Online.] Available: http://www.euthanasia.com/bystate.html
Bowden, Thomas A. November 17, 1999. "Assisted Suicide: A Moral Right." MediaLink. [Online.] Available: http://aynrand.org/ medialink/suicide.html
Chung, Andrew B. November 11, 1999. "The Hippocratic Oath." [Online.] Available: http://userwww.service.emory.edu/~achung /hippocrates.html
"Introduction." Euthanasia: Opposing Viewpoints. Greenhaven Press, 1989.
Johansen, Jay. November 11, 1999. "Euthanasia: A Case of Individual Liberty?." [Online.] Available: http://law.about.com/ medianews/law//gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http://www.ohiolife.org/euth/liberty.htm
"Key Points for Debating Assisted Suicide." November 8, 1999. [Online.] Available: http://www.euthanasia.com/debate.html
"Leading Causes of Death in the United States." November 17, 1999. [Online.] Available: http://amfire.com/afistatistics/deaths2.html
Low, Charlotte. "The Right To Die Is Unethical." Euthanasia: Opposing Viewpoints. Greenhaven Press, 1989.
Schofield, Joyce Ann. "Euthanasia is Unethical." Euthanasia: Opposing Viewpoints. Greenhaven Press, 1989.
Shapiro, Joseph P. "Casting a Cold Eye on 'Death With Dignity': Oregon Studies Year 1 of a Benchmark Law." U.S. News and World Report. March 1, 1999.
Vaticana, Libreria Editrice. Catechism of the Catholic Church. Urbi et Orbi Communications, 1994.