Physician Assisted Death

(Charlee)
John Greene once wrote there is no glory in illness. There is no meaning to it. There is
no honor in dying of it. In other words begin sick isnt something to be glorified and dying of a
painful disease is no ones goal. The one certainty in life is that we will die. While for many this
will happen naturally, others will have to face what is known as terminal illness. This is defined
as a disease that will result in the death of the patient regardless of any treatment intervention.
But it is so much more: a loss of dignity, the inability to fulfill their life, and the pain of seeing
their loved ones suffer watching the painful progression of the illness. This can sometimes result
in a wish to hasten death, and some choose to act on that wish. For them, there are two options:
either Physician assisted death, or Euthanasia.
Although these practices are legal in Oregon, Washington, Montana, Vermont, and New
Mexico, it is controversial: some call it compassionate, others call it murder. Its worth
considering both sides.
For my first point I will cover what Physician assisted suicide is, what it isnt, as well as
some background and some of the regulations. While many people use the terms Physician
Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia interchangeably, they are in fact two different practices.
Euthanasia is when the physician acts directly and is the one to initiate the action causing the
patients death. Physician assisted Suicide is when the patient is the one to act to directly cause
the death, but the physician does prescribe the lethal dose for the patient to use. Even though this
practice has been around for centuries, when people think of Physician assisted suicide one name
comes to mind. Doctor Jack Kevorkian.
Kevorkian was a Michigan doctor known for his unusual proposals, like suggesting a
program for soldiers to allow blood from a corpse to be transfused into an injured soldier. Then
there was his proposal that death-row inmates be used for lethal experiments. Eventually he
created a machine to assist people in their wish to die. His name made headlines after he met
Janet Adkins, an Alzheimer's patient who was looking for someone who would help her to end
her life. After convincing him of her earnest desire to die, he agreed to help her. So began Dr.
Kevorkians assisted suicide crusade to support peoples right to end their own life. While he
was prosecuted four times, on three of them he was acquitted and the fourth was considered a
mistrial. But in March of 1999 he was convicted of second-degree murder and sentenced to 25
years. His lawyers fought to appeal for the next three years. All appeals were denied, including
the request to bring his case to the Supreme Court. He was released 8 years later on good
behavior and a promise to no longer assist people in the act of suicide.
Though legal in some states, according to US legal in Oregon there are a long list of
restrictions including the stipulation that the patient must be at least 18, suffering from a terminal
illness, with a life expectancy of six months or less. They must make two verbal requests, a
written request, and two physicians must be convinced that the patient is sincere in their wish to
die. No one can arbitrarily ask to die and have a Physician hand out a lethal dose of a drug.
Theres a process so this irreversible decision is made with full understanding. Even so, many
people unilaterally object.
Which brings me to my second point, the arguments from both sides.The first argument is
whether its an individuals right to control the time and method of their own death. Those in
opposition maintain that nowhere in the due process of the law or in the concept of human rights

does it state that one has the right to death. Article three of the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights states that everyone has the right to life, liberty, and security of person.
Those who favor Physician Assisted Suicide argue that death is in fact a part of the life
cycle. While actually BEING dead is beyond the scope of life, the ACT of DYING is the final
action one takes within the life cycle. Its a very fine line, but this group contends that the liberty
to control their life encompasses their right to decide how theyll conduct their every acteven
this final action.
The next argument that comes up is religious in nature. Many religions dont condone
Physician assisted death, insisting it goes against their idea that life is given by God, and He ends
it when HE so chooses. This fatalistic view asserts that if God chooses to make someones death
long and painfully drawn-out, then He must have a reason that we dont understand.
The arguments against this are essentially two: One, from those who are religious but still
desire to end their own painful life. They profess that if God didnt want them to have this
option, He would not have shown them the way to do it. They also argue that a merciful God
would not insist that they extend a painfully doomed existence. The other argument comes from
those who DONT believe in God or religion. To them, it does not seem fair or just that the
beliefs of religious individuals should be allowed to dictate the behavior of those who do not
subscribe to the same beliefs.
The Third argument against Physician Assisted Suicide is that its contrary to the
Hippocratic oath, which, according to Peter Tyson in his essay for Nova, is one of the oldest
binding documents in history. The original oath called for doctors to promise, I will neither
give a deadly drug to anybody who asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect. The
erroneous assumption is that this line still exists in the modern oath. It does not.
The modern Hippocratic Oath was written in 1964 by Louis Lasagna, Academic Dean of
the School of Medicine at Tufts University. This version, or a variation, is used in all Medical
Schools today. According to a 1993 survey of 150 U.S. and Canadian Medical Schools, only 14
percent of modern Hippocratic oaths prohibit euthanasia. So for most doctors, the decision to
assist in a compassionate suicide would not be inconsistent with their Hippocratic oath.
While both sides make valid points, for one side it is merely theoretical. While for the
terminally ill, its entirely too real. Let me explain while continuing to my third point.
Brittany Maynard was 29 when diagnosed with a terminal brain cancer. After she and her
family went over the devastating prognosis and explored her end of life choices, they all agreed
to move to Oregon, where she had decided to end her own life through physician assisted
suicide. Brittanys story brought the issue to center stage. One of Brittany's last wishes was that
her supporters continue to show others the good that comes from allowing this practice for those
who are terminally, hopelessly, painfully dying.
Another example is Linda, who at 63 was happy with her life. Her life revolved around
helping her three children and three grandchildren to the best of her ability. But in March of 2007
she was diagnosed with Pancreatic cancer and told there was little that could be done to help.
After hearing of this fatal diagnosis, Linda went on many adventures including dog sledding in
Alaska, and mountain climbing expeditions. Once she was done with these adventures, she went
home and told her family about her diagnosis; one of the final people she told was her oldest
grand daughter.
The day my Nana told me she had cancer I was terrified, but okay at the same time
because she was still herself- happy and healthy, with a great love for all of us. Since I was only
10 years old, I didnt understand how she could be so sick but still be herself. On the day she told

me, she didnt look or act sick, but in the next three months the sickness finally became visible,
her skin began to turn yellow, she lost weight, and was rarely awake. When she was, we often
had to remind her what was happening. After three and a half months of watching my Nana
become someone I barely recognized and seeing her terrible suffering, we lost her to pancreatic
cancer.
My Nanas suffering is the reason I support Physician assisted suicide. She didnt deserve
to suffer like that for months. It should have been her choice when enough suffering was enough.
No one should be compelled to suffer or to have to watch a beloved family member in months of
agony just because someone else disagrees with their wish, and their right, to die.
In conclusion I repeat: there is no glory in illness. There is no meaning to it. There is no
honor in dying of it. If someone is diagnosed with a terminal illness it should not become
something that defines them; it should not be the final legacy they unwillingly leave to their
family. If they want to die on their own terms they should be allowed to do so without shame. It
shouldnt be looked at as a cowardly act of someone who cant take the pain, but rather as a
brave decision to stop the suffering of themselves and their families, allowing them to leave the
image of themselves the way they want to be remembered, and to say a loving farewell while
they still have the ability to tell their loved ones how very much they treasured the lives theyve
spent together.

Sources
Intro
http://euthanasia.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=000132
First point
http://www.worldrtd.net/qanda/physician-assisted-suicide-same-euthanasia
http://www.biography.com/people/jack-kevorkian-9364141#crusade-for-assisted-suicide
http://righttodie.uslegal.com/physician-assisted-suicide/oregons-death-with-dignity-act/
Second point
http://euthanasia.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=000126
http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml#a3
http://www.deathwithdignity.org/historyfacts/religion
Third Point
http://www.thebrittanyfund.org
https://www.caring.com/articles/signs-of-death
Tyson, Peter. The Hippocratic Oath Today. March 27, 2001.