Physician Assisted Death

(Charlee)

Mitch Albom once wrote Sacrafice is part of life. Its supposed to be. Its not something
to regret. Its something to aspire to. The one thing in life thats inevitable is death. So what if a
sacrifice that we made was our own life? For someone who is terminally ill it may not seem like
such a crazy idea, because while terminal illness is defined as an illness that will result in the
patients death regardless of treatment intervention. For those who are terminally ill and those
around them its so much more its the idea of having to leave those you love, the inability to
fulfill your life, and possibly becoming a physical shadow of the person your once were. Now
while none of these are guaranteed even the possibility may result in a wish to hasten ones death,
and for those who chose to act on this wish theres an option known as physician assisted suicide.
Although this practice is legal in Oregon, Washington, Montana, Vermont, and New
Mexico, it still remains a controversial topic: some consider it compassionate, others call it
murder, and both sides deserve to be considered.
My first point will cover what Physician assisted suicide is, what it isnt and how its
handled.Now 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 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, and later began his infamous assisted
suicide crusade. Kevorkians machine injected three separate chemicals the first was essentially
a pain killer, the second put the patient to sleep, and the third would stop the heart. The drug
Pentobarbital is most commonly used today but works to the same extent. Now this isnt a drug
you can walk in to your doctors office and say hey so I think I want to die today, want to hand it
over? and they write the prescription. There is a process for instance, 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 argue the ethics of physician assisted suicide.
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. However, It does not.

Another argument is whether it goes against the line "Be of benefit, or at least do no harm. that
is still within the hippocratic oath.
The modern Hippocratic Oath was written in 1964 by the 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. As far as doing no
harm the argument in favor states that forcing an individual to live through an unnecessary and
painful disease is more harm than giving a drug that would allow them to end their current pain
and leave an image of how they want to be remembered.
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. She was told
there wasnt anything that could be done. 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 Brittanys final wishes was this My dream is that every terminally ill
American has access to the choice to die on their own terms with dignity. Please take an active
role to make this a reality. Brittany Maynard, October 24, 2014. Who are we to tell anyone or
their family how they should end their life, ultimately the decision should be theirs.

Now imagine this a little girl who has just celebrated her tenth birthday, walks up to a
hospital bed that has been placed in her own front room so that the woman in the bed can pass
away comfortably. Just weeks ago this woman was going on adventures that included dog
sledding in Alaska and mountain climbing through the rockies, naturally the little girl finds it
hard to believe that this could be the same person. The woman in the bed is the girls grandma,
but she's not at the same time. Her skin is yellow and she has lost so much weight the her bones
pop out, every breathe she takes is a struggle. The little girl looks again but realizes that her
grandma isnt there anymore. Now I wish that I could say that my grandma was still the woman
Id always loved till the day she died but she wasnt, and she was gone far before they announced
her time of death. Sure her physical body was there struggling to hold onto life, but emotionally
and mentally my grandma was gone. This is an image of her I wish I could forget but I cant, and
I wish I could say that the night that she died there wasnt a sense of relief but there was, because
the suffering was finally over for all of us.
My grandmas as well as my own and anyone else who has faced this suffering is why I
support physician assisted suicide. Because everyone should get to choose when their suffering is
enough and how they wish to end their life.
In conclusion I repeat Sacrafice is part of life. Its supposed to be. Its not something to
regret. Its something to aspire to.. If someone choses to end their life on their own term they
should be able to without it being looked at as the act of a coward who cant take the pain but
rather the brave sacrifice to end their own suffering as well as the suffering of those they love.
Also if someone is diagnosed with a terminal illness it shouldn't become something that defines
them and definitely should not be the final legacy they unwillingly leave up one their family,

because everyone deserves to be able to say a loving farewell to those they love and leave an of
image of how they want to be remembered.
Thank you.

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.