Euthanasia Research Paper

Posted on April 24, 2009

Euthanasia is a unique practice of ending the life of an individual suffering from a terminal disease/illness or an incurable condition by means of the suspension of extraordinary medical treatment or lethal injection. The history of this phenomena dates back for centuries, but it wasn’t until 1906 when the first bill to legalize euthanasia in America was introduced in the Ohio legislature. For several years, legislatures have been turning down bills aimed at the legalization of euthanasia in the United States. In 1937, the Nebraska legislature voted down a bill legalizing voluntary active euthanasia in the U.S. Only two years later, the New York legislature rejected a bill that was also aimed at the legalization of euthanasia in the United States. “In 1991 the Washington State Initiative Bill legalizing voluntary euthanasia was narrowly defeated.” (6) In 1994, Oregon passed a law to allow doctors to prescribe lethal drugs, but an injunction prevented it from taking effect.

As of today, euthanasia is illegal in almost every country. In fact, it is only legal in the state of Oregon and the Netherlands. These are the only two places in the world where laws specifically permit euthanasia or assisted suicide. Oregon permits assisted suicide while the Netherlands permits both euthanasia and assisted suicide. In 1995, Australia’s northern territory approved a euthanasia bill which went into effect in 1996, but it was overturned by the Australian Parliament in 1997. “Also, in 1997, Columbia’s Supreme Court ruled that penalties for mercy killing should be removed.”(4) This ruling will not go into effect though until guidelines are approved by the Columbian Congress.

In Belgium, lawmakers have agreed on the provisions of a key article in a draft proposal to legalize euthanasia. “The proposed bill would not only allow doctors to euthanasia terminally- ill patients, but also those who are incurably ill with years left to live.” (4) In Michigan, the assisted suicide ballot initiative was defeated due to television ads who are now shifting gears to focus on alternatives to assisted suicide such as hospice care. Advocates for assisted suicide in Michigan are releasing their own radio and television ads in attempt to counter the anti-proposal ads.

Many court cases have come out of the heated topic as well. While the first euthanasia case in Japan was in 1949, it wasn’t until 1962 that the Nagayo Court created a criteria for lawful active euthanasia. ” The court concluded if six conditions could be fulfilled, a death should be admitted as lawful euthanasia.” (6) In 1976, the New Jersey Supreme Court ruled in the Karen Ann Quinlin case that she had the right through her family to refuse life-sustaining treatment. In 1981, A Rotterdam court ruled on conditions under which aiding suicide and administering voluntary euthanasia will not be prosecuted. The Supreme Court of the Netherlands declared that voluntary euthanasia is acceptable subject to ten clearly defined conditions in 1984, and in 1993 the Netherlands passed a law which prevented doctors from being prosecuted when certain guidelines are followed. In 1994, Oregon passed a law to allow doctors to prescribe lethal drugs, but an injunction prevented it from taking effect. Also in 1994, “delegates from the National People’s Congress in the Republic of China, proposed a law in support of euthanasia.” (6) In 1995, Australia’s Northern Territory Rights of the Terminally Ill Bill by Marshall Perron was instated which allowed euthanasia under careful controls. In 1995, Singapore introduced a right- to-die law which was originally sought after not to legalize euthanasia but to give the terminally ill the right to make a living will.

Throughout this time many societies that were pro euthanasia began forming all over the world. In 1935, the Voluntary Euthanasia Society in England was formed by Lord Moynihan and Dr Killick Millard. In 1938, The Euthanasia Society of the United States of America was founded in New York City. In 1973, voluntary euthanasia societies began forming in the Netherlands. Three years later more societies started forming in Japan and Germany. In 1980, “The Voluntary euthanasia Society in Scotland published the first suicide guide, “How to Die With Dignity.” (6) By the 1990’s euthanasia had become a worldwide topic of debate. There are many pros and cons that deal with euthanasia. In dealing with the pro view, the major argument is that all Americans have a constitutional right to life, and with this control of life also comes the authority to end it. “Prohibitions on suicide are viewed by many as a violation of basic constitutional freedoms and governmental interference.” (5) Proponents also use the argument that newly diagnosed patients with terminal illnesses may want to end their lives before they endure physical discomfort or suffering. Patients may want to seek euthanasia in order to avoid being seen in a diminished capacity and protect their memory of an able-bodied life. Another argument for the use of euthanasia is to avoid leaving loved ones the expensive costs of medical care and posing a financial burden to them. Choosing assisted suicide may prove to be more cost efficient than long-term medical care. “Next to pain and suffering, this is the second major reason why people decide to end their lives.”(5) Many proponents see that “The argument against assisted-suicide is advanced by a religious minority who believe that a just, loving god should decide the moment of death.” (3) These are some of the major reasons why proponents for euthanasia support the right to die.

People who oppose the legalization of euthanasia use the argument that once the gate is opened, others lives will be at risk. ” Over time statutes may give rise to broader and less stringent laws that provide people with non-terminal disabilities, an excuse to end their lives.” (5) “Many advocates take the position that legalizing assisted suicide and active voluntary euthanasia today will lead to active involuntary euthanasia tomorrow.” (5) Another argument is that many people who are terminally ill and feel themselves to be a burden to their family, are not really tired off life and don’t actually want to die. If euthanasia was readily available, the patient might feel obligated to use it.

There are many more arguments on the legalization of euthanasia or assisted suicide. One dealing with the con view is that the patient’s voluntary and informed consent is never certain because most people who want to die are under duress. If a request is made while an individual is suffering or under excruciating pain, then it is arguable that drugs may have prevented the person from making a fully rational decision. Also it is argued that “the norms of medicine prohibit a physician from ever acting with the intent to kill a patient or to aid him in killing himself.” (1) Some agree as well that “Death is never the answer, and precious lives must be preserved.” (2)

The Hemlock society is a major proponent in assisted suicide. “Hemlock strongly believes that people should be able to have dignity and choice at the end of life. They ought to have the option of a peaceful, gentle, certain and swift death in the company of their loved ones.” (7) The Hemlock society advocated and lobbies for laws that would allow a mentally competent patient to be euthanized with he help of a doctor. Along with this law certain safeguards should be in place such as; a diagnoses of a terminal or irreversible illness by two independent physicians, an evaluation by a mental health professional, a written and witnessed request that is revocable at any time, a waiting period, and monitoring by a state health department.

The American Medical Association strictly opposes the use of euthanasia. “The AMA supports initiatives that help physicians and their patients deal with the clinical and psychological issues at the end-of-life.” (8) They support providing compassionate care for patients nearing death. While modern advances in medical science and technology have helped physicians to treat patients with once critical and life-threatening illnesses, some of these new technologies have merely prolonged the suffering for patients. The AMA still maintains that physicians should practice medicine with respectful and compassionate attitudes.

One pro-life group called Not Dead Yet, understands that people have the right to refuse unwanted treatment. They oppose “a public policy that singles out individuals for legalized killing based on their health status.” (9) They believe that this violates the Americans With Disabilities Act, which denies the equal protection of the law, and health professionals decide who is “eligible.” Not Dead Yet does not want pity or lethal mercy but freedom and life.

CURE is another pro-life group. Their reasons are for compassion and unity. People of CURE believe that “to care is not to kill.” (10) They believe there is an alternative to death and euthanasia which is life and hope. Uniting together will bring strength and a prolonged life.

The International Task Force of Euthanasia & Assisted Suicide also opposes euthanasia. One of their reasons is complications that can occur from usage. Extreme gasping and muscle spasms can occur and has occurred in 7% of cases. While losing consciousness, a person can vomit and then inhale the vomit which has also occurred in 7% of cases. Panic, feelings of terror, and assaultive behavior can take place from the drug-induced confusion. Other problems can include difficulty in taking the drug and a number of days elapsing before death occurs. In 14% of cases there was a failure of the drugs to induce unconsciousness. Another reason why they are anti-euthanasia is because they don’t believe the government should give the right to doctors to kill their patients. They believe that euthanasia is not giving the right to die but the right to kill. There are other alternatives like Hospice which tries to make the patients remaining time comfortable, alleviating pains, and giving spiritual and emotional support.

Dr. Jack Kevorkian, a 71 year old retired pathologist, is known to many as the patriarch of assisted suicide. He is currently serving a sentence of 10-25 in a Michigan correctional facility for his involvement in helping at least 130 people die from euthanasia. He was charged for murder in both 1991 and 1992 when patients of his used a suicide machine he developed, and his medical licence was revoked. Both charges were later dropped though when state judges pointed out that there were no laws against assisted suicide in the state of Michigan. It wasn’t until 1993 when assisted suicide laws took effect, and Kevorkian, who had killed several more patients by this time, was charged again for murder. He served some jail time when he refused to pay the bail after the judge raised it. He was released from jail though later that year when supporters posted the bail.

Between 1994 and 1996, Kevorkian killed some thirty more patients, and is charged for murder three more times. He is acquitted for these cases as well. In 1998, Kevorkian videotaped the injection death of Thomas Youk which aired two months later on “60 Minutes.” He is again charged for murder, and in 1999 is convicted for second-degree murder and delivery of a controlled substance. Dr. Kevorkian remains one of the most controversial physicians in America today. He has been hailed by some as a hero and by others, little more than a serial killer.

I believe that the legalization of euthanasia would be a good thing for America. An individuals right to determine the time and manner of their death is more important than keeping a suffering person alive for the sake of preserving life. I understand that the legalization of euthanasia will most likely lead to an excuse for many people who are not terminally to end their own lives. But I do believe that an evaluation by a mental health professional for those suspected to have clinical depression or mental incompetence can help prevent most of this. There are many good points and bad points to the legalization of assisted suicide like any controversial issue. I understand it to be a good thing though if a person truly is suffering and has no hopeful prospects for the future.

Upgrade your essays with these FREE writing tools!
Get started now