Written by: gpavlushkin
The practice of euthanasia has posed a question of morality and ethicality which has been a major topic of controversy for centuries. It raises the issue of whether a terminally ill person should suffer torturing and lingering pain before death, or if they should be given the choice of peaceful and painless death. The euthanasia controversy is part of a larger issue concerning the right to die and “staunch defenders of personal liberty argue that all of us are morally entitled to end our lives when we see fit” (“Euthanasia” 1). Early practices of euthanasia have been traced back to the ancient Roman and Greek Empires. In their beliefs “ the ancient Greeks and Romans did not consider life needed to be preserved at any cost and were, in consequence, tolerant of suicide in cases where no relief could be offered to the dying or, where a person no longer cared for his life” (“Voluntary Euthanasia” 2). The word euthanasia derived from the Greek words eu – thanatos which means gentle and easy death. In society, euthanasia can be viewed in two different forms; passive and active. Passive euthanasia involves a terminally ill person to do nothing to prevent his or her death and allowing himself or herself to die. On the contrary, active euthanasia involves a request by the dying patient or that person’s legal representative to have a physician inject a lethal dose of a drug to kill the person. Active euthanasia is the more controversial of the two and is currently illegal in the United States. The attempt to legalize euthanasia has lead to the “right to die” movement which states that such laws violate the people’s privacy and rights. This movement was led by Dr. Jack Kevorkian who believes “people have a right to avoid a lingering, miserable death by ending their own lives with help from a physician who can ensure that they die peacefully” (“Jack Kevorkian” 1). Dr. Jack Kevorkian respected requests from the patient and illustrated rebellion against such laws which strip people of the right to choose their own fate. The state of Oregon protects the laws of active euthanasia and provides a choice with the Oregon’s Death with Dignity Act, which allows prescriptions of lethal doses of a drug to be self - administered by the patient under strict circumstances and procedures. Making active euthanasia in the United States illegal sparked debates of whether it violates our Human Rights Act and has also gained worldwide attention in countries including the Netherlands and Australia. The majority of society supports the idea behind the question; “which comes first, rights or needs?” (Kohl 46) and argue that our rights our crucial to the quality of life. Active euthanasia has been a controversial issue in the United States and was made illegal throughout the nation except in the state of Oregon. The state of Oregon passed an Oregon Death with Dignity Law in 1997 and became the first and only state to legalize physician – assisted suicide (PAS). This law provided permission for physicians to prescribe a lethal dose of medication to terminally ill patients who requested such medicine. The lethal dose allowed the terminally ill patient to decide his own time to die and embedded him with the right to choose of what he wants from his life. Some family members of the patients who volunteered to use PAS “discussed the patient’s desire to avoid a prolonged death where he/she lost control of mind and body, with four family members specifically noting the patient’s fear of ending life comatose on a respirator, despite having advance medical directives” (“Oregon’s Death…Year” 5). The Oregon Death with Dignity Law has very strict requirements and a special procedure to qualify for the prescribed lethal dosage. The law’s specific safeguards include three main requirements which “ensure that the patient is protected and is in control of the process” (“Safeguards of the Law” 1). Before any consideration for the prescription from the physician, the Oregon law requires the patient to be at least “an adult (18 years of age or older), be an established resident in Oregon, and finally must be diagnosed with a terminal illness that will lead to death within 6 months” (“Safeguards of the Law” 1). Certain “Right to Die” organizations are battling a fight to keep the people’s rights in our possession and not the governments’, “A new freedom is being demanded today: the freedom to choose death. More and more people are now realizing that the right to die with dignity, so long denied to countless people, is a basic human right that should be available to those hopelessly ill patients who request it” (Russell 17). In addition, the state of Oregon covers every aspect of the patient’s rights and makes sure that the safeguards are fulfilled in the following procedures: The patient must make two oral requests to their physician, separated by at least 15 days. The patient must provide a written request to their physician witnessed by two individuals who are not family members or primary caregivers. A patient must rescind his or her request at any time. The diagnosis and prognosis must be confirmed by the prescribing physician and a consulting physician. The prescribing physician and a consulting physician must concur that the patient is capable (defined as able to make and communicate health care decisions). If either physician determines that the patient’s judgment is impaired, the patient must be referred for a psychological examination. The prescribing physician must inform the patient of alternatives including palliative care, hospice and pain management options. The prescribing physician must request that the patient notify their next – of – kin of the prescription request. (1) Finally, the full process of such procedures has to be reported to the Oregon Department of Human Services (DHS) in order to complete approval for the lethal medication. Such a law in Oregon will begin a nationwide movement in hopes to spread knowledge about people’s rights and hopefully progress to legalize active euthanasia throughout the country. Similarly, the case of Diane Pretty exhibited the denial of her rights. Diane Pretty is a 43 year old woman who is terminally ill with motor neuron disease causing her terrible physical disability. Diane Pretty “wants to choose how and when she dies, but will need assistance in ending her life because she is physically incapacitated” (“Justice 4 Diane” 1). The request to the Supreme Court was made asking if her husband Brian Pretty could assist his wife in taking her own life without any prosecution. The reply provided no assurance for Brian and Diane and did not give a definite answer on the prosecution. The Pretty family decided to debate this issue in court and attempt to win their right to decide on her life. On 10th and 11th of October 2001, Diane’s lawyers argued that the court’s decision did not comply with the Human Rights Act. The main focus of their arguments concentrated on three key rights protected by the new law: Article 3 says it is everyone's absolute right not to be subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment - treatment that causes intense physical and mental suffering. By not allowing Diane's choice that someone help her end her life, the law condemns Mrs. Pretty to prolonged suffering and increasing loss of dignity. Article 8 is the right to privacy and to personal autonomy over one's own body, free from state interference. Because of her physical condition Diane requires help in order to exercise her autonomy - and so the law should allow her to request this assistance. Article 14 outlaws discrimination. If Diane were less physically disabled she could end her own life legally because suicide is not a criminal offence. However, motor neuron disease has weakened Diane physically and she would need a third party's assistance, but she is prevented from receiving such assistance by the 1961 Suicide Act, which criminalized assisted suicide. Hence she is being discriminated against. (2) Due to the illegalization of active euthanasia, Diane Pretty’s wishes and rights are denied which portrays evidence that such thinking behind the legal system is invalid. Similarly, “to insist that an individual continue to live without certain implementation of the conditions under which he chooses to live may be a violation of his rights, if not his privacy” (Goldfarb 6). Diane Pretty exclaims that she “desperately wants a doctor to help her die” (“Justice 4 Diane” 2), but due to her condition, she is unable to do it herself and needs assistance. Diane requests a quick death without suffering, at her house surrounded by her family so she can say good bye to them. The change in law to legalize active euthanasia will allow patients’ sufferings, like those of Diane Pretty, to not be endured. In the movement to legalize active euthanasia, Dr. Jack Kevorkian is one of the strongest supporters who consider the law as a violation of our rights and privacy. In the late 1980s, Kevorkian built a machine that assisted people to commit suicide by giving them a narcotic followed by a lethal dose of potassium chloride. In 1990, Kevorkian found his first client in Janet Adkins, who was a 54 year old Alzheimer’s patient from Portland Oregon. Since 1990, Kevorkian assisted at least 130 patients in committing suicide. In 1998, he videotaped how he assisted one of his patients with a lethal injection instead of providing the means for the patient to kill himself. The patient had Lou Gehrig’s disease and could not move, but clearly asked Kevorkian to help him. Doctor Kevorkian videotaped the procedure to portray innocence because the patient clearly asked for his help. Kevorkian’s beliefs were distinguished from all other patients because the assumption was that he was acting on behalf of the patient’s rights. When the videotape was aired on “60 minutes”, Kevorkian was brought to trial for the fifth time and this time convicted to ten to twenty five years in prison. Kevorkian granted painless death to a hopelessly ill patient with a non – curable disease and helped a person out of misery and suffering. The Human Rights Act allows an individual to have his rights to choose life or death and government or society should have no power over the decision. Kevorkian’s opinion on life encompasses the answer to the question of “what right does society have to insist that a person live as long as possible?” (Russell 3). The law does not dictate that it is illegal to act upon passive euthanasia and commit suicide, but does state that active euthanasia is illegal; when the physician is only trying to help the patient die in peace, “rather than die by choking or suffocation” (“Justice4Diane” 2). As the law stands it makes no sense. Kevorkian’s actions have helped society confront a critical issue and protect the humane right to privacy. In Oregon, where the practice of active euthanasia is allowed, no abuse of the system has occurred and doctors respected the person’s demands as long as the request was present. The law has major contradictions within it and therefore causes major controversial issues involving active euthanasia. Kevorkian’s ethics and moral beliefs are justified because people in society need to express their right to make their own decisions and no authority should intervene with the privacy of the person’s life when there is no harm done to any other individual. In conclusion, the moral and ethical beliefs surrounding active euthanasia are justified. Every person has the right to choose his or her own life’s fate and decide what is suitable for that person. Specific laws that govern the people’s lives such as Human Rights Act, and Oregon’s Death with Dignity law establish straight forward guidelines of what is right and wrong. When society denies people of such privileges, then the law does not stand true. The movement to legalize active euthanasia will administer great control of people’s own lives and allow the quality of life to be more enjoyable. The individual should be allowed to control the moment where “quality comes first and that being human is more important than being alive” (Kohl 48). The law should allow individuals choose whether they want to die in dignity or in memories of pain and suffering. The infrastructure of today’s moral and ethical standards should incorporate wants and needs of individuals and legalize active euthanasia.