Documented Argument Final Draft
Physician Assisted Suicide
The United States is often called “the Land of the Free,” however in most states, citizens do not even have the freedom to choose to do something that everyone must eventually do; to have the right to die. With advances in today’s medicine and technology, the ability to sustain and prolong life is at an all time high. However, this also often means prolonging an inevitable death for many patients suffering from terminal diseases. For example, many patients suffering from Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS) often turn to suicide rather than suffer through the effects of the final stages of the disease, such as blindness, dementia, and emaciation (Worsnop). Terminally ill patients should be allowed to make their own decisions pertaining to their death. One option is Physician Assisted Suicide, which has been a very controversial topic for many decades, and continues to be an increasingly popular debate. Assisted suicide is defined as someone providing an individual with the information, guidance and means to take his or her own life with the intention that they will be used for this purpose. When it is a doctor who helps another person to end his or her life it is called Physician Assisted Suicide. Physician Assisted Suicide should be legalized in all states because patients should be allowed the right to die on their own terms, it is immoral to keep someone alive against their will, and because it has proven effective in the three states that have already legalized it.
In 1975, after a drug and alcohol overdose, Karen Ann Quinlan (21 years old) was taken to a hospital and put on a ventilator. After several days the doctors determined that Karen Ann was in an irreversible coma, also known as a persistent vegetative state (PSV). Karen Ann’s family decided that she would not want to be kept alive by machines and artificial means, and finally reached the decision to take her off of her ventilator. The hospital initially agreed to remove her from her life sustaining machines, but then changed their minds, leading to a very significant court case. After losing their first trial in the Superior Court, the Quinlan’s took their case to the New Jersey Supreme Court which ruled in their favor. Karen Ann Quinlan became the first legal case in what would later be known as the “right-to-die movement.” This legal case set precedents and established a patient’s right to refuse medical care and control his or her own medical treatment. (Karen Ann Quinlan: A Pioneer in the Right-to-Die Movement.)
The most obvious argument in favor of Physician Assisted Suicide is that it allows the patient to have the right to control their own medical decisions. In the case of many patients that are terminally ill, the disease they suffer from has taken away their right to control what they are capable of doing, making medical decisions and even functions of their own body. Legalizing Physician Assisted Suicide would allow the patient to regain control and decide how far they are willing to let their terminal illness take them. Physician Assisted Suicide could also save the patient’s family from large medical costs that would be needed to keep the patient alive. Allowing the patient to decide when they want to die could also save their family from having to make tough medical decisions that could be needed if the patient’s illness leads them to a state where they are unable to speak and make decisions for themselves. According to author Richard Warsnop, This proves especially true for elderly patients who worry “over the prospect of becoming a financial and emotional burden on their children” (Worsnop). Although there are many arguments in support of Physician Assisted Suicide, there are also several counter arguments to the subject.
The main argument against Physician Assisted Suicide is that it is essentially killing which is something that is considered morally wrong. However, what this argument doesn’t show is that the patient’s illness can cause them to suffer a lot for a long time. To be fair to all patients, similar cases should be treated alike. Many terminally ill patients are allowed to shorten their suffering by refusing life sustaining treatment. In many cases however, refusal of treatment will not quicken the dying process, which leaves assisted suicide as a favorable option over suffering for an extended period of time (Hosseini, 6). In the article, the case for euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide, the author describes assisted suicide as “a compassionate response to medical failure” (Gibson, 2). Forcing a patient to stay alive and suffer when they have no chance of survival should be seen as morally wrong. In an article by Rod MacLeod, the author states that “assistance to hasten death is ethically permissible because competent individuals have a right to request and receive assisted death . . . in qualified circumstances” (MacLeod, 6). Physician Assisted suicide can help to stop the suffering of patients at their request. It is never an option forced upon a patient; it is something that only the patient can request for his or herself.
Requests for Physician assisted suicide first became a very public controversy in the 1990’s because of a doctor named Jack Kevorkian. Kevorkian first drew national attention in 1990 when he hooked up a 54-year-old Alzheimer’s patient to his homemade suicide machine and watched as she pushed a button to release the lethal drugs. Kevorkian claimed to have helped over 130 terminally and chronically ill patients take their own lives. He was tried four times in the death of ill people before he was finally convicted of second degree murder in 1999 for giving a fatal injection to a man named Thomas Youk, a 52-year-old man who had Lou Gehrig’s disease (Schneider). Between the times he began assisting patients in their suicides until his final conviction in 1999, Dr. Kevorkian received much publicity for himself as well as the assisted suicide controversy.
As a result of the amount of publicity over the Kevorkian trials, hospice care and physicians became more sympathetic to their patients and more willing to prescribe medication to relieve their pain. This pushed many states to begin the fight to legalize physician assisted suicide. The United States Supreme Court has ruled that there is not a constitutional right to assist in a suicide; however they allow each individual state the right to decide whether or not to legalize Physician Assisted Suicide (Hosseini, 2). According to the Patients Rights Council, there were 135 legislative proposals to legalize Physician Assisted Suicide in 27 different states from January 1994 through April 2013 (Patients Rights Council). Of all the states that have attempted, Oregon was the first state that successfully legalized Physician Assisted Suicide when their “Death with Dignity” Act passed in 1997.
This Death with Dignity Act has shown to be so successful in Oregon because it has numerous restrictions which ensure that only terminally ill patients who have no chance of survival are eligible. These restrictions include: the patient being eighteen years of age or older, they must have decision making capacity, must have a terminal illness which will lead to death in at least six months, the patient must make one written and two oral requests for the medication to end his or her life, and at least two doctors must confirm the diagnosis (Lunge). Author Rod MacLeod states that “Evidence from Oregon’s first year of legalized [Physician Assisted Suicide] … shows [that] many terminally ill patients worried about their loss of autonomy and loss of bodily functions … [suggesting] that controlling the time of death was important to them” (MacLeod, 7). Because the patients are the only ones who can make this decision for themselves, it allows them to have “death with dignity” by allowing them to decide their own fate. Since the passing of Oregon’s law, both Washington and Montana have passed similar laws. (Lunge)
Overall, Physician Assisted Suicide should be legalized because it could help the patient by allowing them to make their own decisions pertaining to their death, because it would be immoral to keep someone alive against their will and because it has been effective in the three states that have already legalized it. It allows patients to regain the control which the terminal illness may have taken from them. Oregon has had Physician Assisted Suicide legalized for almost 20 years and has not seen any negative effects of legalizing it. Legalizing it would not force anyone to partake in the action, but simply gives those who are in need the right to die. Death is inevitable. Shouldn’t people get to make the decisions pertaining to their own death?
Works Cited
· "Attempts to Legalize." Patients Rights Council. N.p., n.d. Web. 08 May 2013. <http://www.patientsrightscouncil.org/site/failed-attempts-usa/>.
· Gibson, Robin. "The case for euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide." ISAA Review: journal of the Independent Scholars Association of Australia 11.1 (2012): 55+. Academic OneFile. Web. 8 May 2013.
· Hosseini, Hengameh M. "Ethics, the illegality of physician assisted suicide in the United States, and the role and ordeal of Dr. Jack Kevorkian before his death." Review of European Studies 4.5 (2012): 203+. Academic OneFile. Web. 8 May 2013.
· "Karen Ann Quinlan: A Pioneer in the Right-to-Die Movement." About.com Death and Dying. N.p., n.d. Web. 08 Apr. 2013.
· Lunge, Robin. "Oregon’s Death with Dignity Law." Oregon’s Death with Dignity Law. N.p., n.d. Web. 08 May 2013. <http://www.leg.state.vt.us/reports/04death/death_with_dignity_report.htm>.
· MacLeod, Rod D., Donna M. Wilson, and Phillipa Malpas. "Assisted or hastened death: the healthcare practitioner's dilemma." Global Journal of Health Science 4.6 (2012): 87+. Academic OneFile. Web. 8 May 2013.
· Schneider, Keith. "Dr. Jack Kevorkian Dies at 83; A Doctor Who Helped End Lives." The New York Times 3 June 2011
· Worsnop, Richard L. "Assisted Suicide." CQ Researcher 21 Feb. 1992: 145-68. Web. 8 May 2013.
The United States is often called “the Land of the Free,” however in most states, citizens do not even have the freedom to choose to do something that everyone must eventually do; to have the right to die. With advances in today’s medicine and technology, the ability to sustain and prolong life is at an all time high. However, this also often means prolonging an inevitable death for many patients suffering from terminal diseases. For example, many patients suffering from Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS) often turn to suicide rather than suffer through the effects of the final stages of the disease, such as blindness, dementia, and emaciation (Worsnop). Terminally ill patients should be allowed to make their own decisions pertaining to their death. One option is Physician Assisted Suicide, which has been a very controversial topic for many decades, and continues to be an increasingly popular debate. Assisted suicide is defined as someone providing an individual with the information, guidance and means to take his or her own life with the intention that they will be used for this purpose. When it is a doctor who helps another person to end his or her life it is called Physician Assisted Suicide. Physician Assisted Suicide should be legalized in all states because patients should be allowed the right to die on their own terms, it is immoral to keep someone alive against their will, and because it has proven effective in the three states that have already legalized it.
In 1975, after a drug and alcohol overdose, Karen Ann Quinlan (21 years old) was taken to a hospital and put on a ventilator. After several days the doctors determined that Karen Ann was in an irreversible coma, also known as a persistent vegetative state (PSV). Karen Ann’s family decided that she would not want to be kept alive by machines and artificial means, and finally reached the decision to take her off of her ventilator. The hospital initially agreed to remove her from her life sustaining machines, but then changed their minds, leading to a very significant court case. After losing their first trial in the Superior Court, the Quinlan’s took their case to the New Jersey Supreme Court which ruled in their favor. Karen Ann Quinlan became the first legal case in what would later be known as the “right-to-die movement.” This legal case set precedents and established a patient’s right to refuse medical care and control his or her own medical treatment. (Karen Ann Quinlan: A Pioneer in the Right-to-Die Movement.)
The most obvious argument in favor of Physician Assisted Suicide is that it allows the patient to have the right to control their own medical decisions. In the case of many patients that are terminally ill, the disease they suffer from has taken away their right to control what they are capable of doing, making medical decisions and even functions of their own body. Legalizing Physician Assisted Suicide would allow the patient to regain control and decide how far they are willing to let their terminal illness take them. Physician Assisted Suicide could also save the patient’s family from large medical costs that would be needed to keep the patient alive. Allowing the patient to decide when they want to die could also save their family from having to make tough medical decisions that could be needed if the patient’s illness leads them to a state where they are unable to speak and make decisions for themselves. According to author Richard Warsnop, This proves especially true for elderly patients who worry “over the prospect of becoming a financial and emotional burden on their children” (Worsnop). Although there are many arguments in support of Physician Assisted Suicide, there are also several counter arguments to the subject.
The main argument against Physician Assisted Suicide is that it is essentially killing which is something that is considered morally wrong. However, what this argument doesn’t show is that the patient’s illness can cause them to suffer a lot for a long time. To be fair to all patients, similar cases should be treated alike. Many terminally ill patients are allowed to shorten their suffering by refusing life sustaining treatment. In many cases however, refusal of treatment will not quicken the dying process, which leaves assisted suicide as a favorable option over suffering for an extended period of time (Hosseini, 6). In the article, the case for euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide, the author describes assisted suicide as “a compassionate response to medical failure” (Gibson, 2). Forcing a patient to stay alive and suffer when they have no chance of survival should be seen as morally wrong. In an article by Rod MacLeod, the author states that “assistance to hasten death is ethically permissible because competent individuals have a right to request and receive assisted death . . . in qualified circumstances” (MacLeod, 6). Physician Assisted suicide can help to stop the suffering of patients at their request. It is never an option forced upon a patient; it is something that only the patient can request for his or herself.
Requests for Physician assisted suicide first became a very public controversy in the 1990’s because of a doctor named Jack Kevorkian. Kevorkian first drew national attention in 1990 when he hooked up a 54-year-old Alzheimer’s patient to his homemade suicide machine and watched as she pushed a button to release the lethal drugs. Kevorkian claimed to have helped over 130 terminally and chronically ill patients take their own lives. He was tried four times in the death of ill people before he was finally convicted of second degree murder in 1999 for giving a fatal injection to a man named Thomas Youk, a 52-year-old man who had Lou Gehrig’s disease (Schneider). Between the times he began assisting patients in their suicides until his final conviction in 1999, Dr. Kevorkian received much publicity for himself as well as the assisted suicide controversy.
As a result of the amount of publicity over the Kevorkian trials, hospice care and physicians became more sympathetic to their patients and more willing to prescribe medication to relieve their pain. This pushed many states to begin the fight to legalize physician assisted suicide. The United States Supreme Court has ruled that there is not a constitutional right to assist in a suicide; however they allow each individual state the right to decide whether or not to legalize Physician Assisted Suicide (Hosseini, 2). According to the Patients Rights Council, there were 135 legislative proposals to legalize Physician Assisted Suicide in 27 different states from January 1994 through April 2013 (Patients Rights Council). Of all the states that have attempted, Oregon was the first state that successfully legalized Physician Assisted Suicide when their “Death with Dignity” Act passed in 1997.
This Death with Dignity Act has shown to be so successful in Oregon because it has numerous restrictions which ensure that only terminally ill patients who have no chance of survival are eligible. These restrictions include: the patient being eighteen years of age or older, they must have decision making capacity, must have a terminal illness which will lead to death in at least six months, the patient must make one written and two oral requests for the medication to end his or her life, and at least two doctors must confirm the diagnosis (Lunge). Author Rod MacLeod states that “Evidence from Oregon’s first year of legalized [Physician Assisted Suicide] … shows [that] many terminally ill patients worried about their loss of autonomy and loss of bodily functions … [suggesting] that controlling the time of death was important to them” (MacLeod, 7). Because the patients are the only ones who can make this decision for themselves, it allows them to have “death with dignity” by allowing them to decide their own fate. Since the passing of Oregon’s law, both Washington and Montana have passed similar laws. (Lunge)
Overall, Physician Assisted Suicide should be legalized because it could help the patient by allowing them to make their own decisions pertaining to their death, because it would be immoral to keep someone alive against their will and because it has been effective in the three states that have already legalized it. It allows patients to regain the control which the terminal illness may have taken from them. Oregon has had Physician Assisted Suicide legalized for almost 20 years and has not seen any negative effects of legalizing it. Legalizing it would not force anyone to partake in the action, but simply gives those who are in need the right to die. Death is inevitable. Shouldn’t people get to make the decisions pertaining to their own death?
Works Cited
· "Attempts to Legalize." Patients Rights Council. N.p., n.d. Web. 08 May 2013. <http://www.patientsrightscouncil.org/site/failed-attempts-usa/>.
· Gibson, Robin. "The case for euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide." ISAA Review: journal of the Independent Scholars Association of Australia 11.1 (2012): 55+. Academic OneFile. Web. 8 May 2013.
· Hosseini, Hengameh M. "Ethics, the illegality of physician assisted suicide in the United States, and the role and ordeal of Dr. Jack Kevorkian before his death." Review of European Studies 4.5 (2012): 203+. Academic OneFile. Web. 8 May 2013.
· "Karen Ann Quinlan: A Pioneer in the Right-to-Die Movement." About.com Death and Dying. N.p., n.d. Web. 08 Apr. 2013.
· Lunge, Robin. "Oregon’s Death with Dignity Law." Oregon’s Death with Dignity Law. N.p., n.d. Web. 08 May 2013. <http://www.leg.state.vt.us/reports/04death/death_with_dignity_report.htm>.
· MacLeod, Rod D., Donna M. Wilson, and Phillipa Malpas. "Assisted or hastened death: the healthcare practitioner's dilemma." Global Journal of Health Science 4.6 (2012): 87+. Academic OneFile. Web. 8 May 2013.
· Schneider, Keith. "Dr. Jack Kevorkian Dies at 83; A Doctor Who Helped End Lives." The New York Times 3 June 2011
· Worsnop, Richard L. "Assisted Suicide." CQ Researcher 21 Feb. 1992: 145-68. Web. 8 May 2013.