Gillis

Kaley Gillis
Professor Tamara Webb
English 1010
December 10, 2015
Death Isn't So Bad, Right?
Imagine being in a hospital room diagnosed with a terminal illness and the prognosis is
three to six months. Those three to six months are going to be very expensive and very painful
and will result in death. Lots of medications will need to be taken and numerous nights will be
spent in the hospital. Loss of bodily control will start to take over and the loss of independence
will be devastating. Family and loved ones will only get to sit around and watch their loved one
slowly and painfully slip into death, watching the person they once knew fade away. The
suffering will become intolerable and the question will become, 'Is there a different option?' For
people that have terminal diseases, there is another option that can be chosen to end the suffering
and pain. Euthanasia would allow the person to give consent to a healthcare provider to end their
life and allow them to die in peace and suffer from no more pain. Rather than waiting those
three to six months for a natural death in pain, a time can be chosen by the patient where they
will end their life. Because of the consent obtained, this cannot be considered murder or
unethical because the patient is terminal and is volunteering to die. Euthanasia is beneficial for a
patient because it allows a patient to practice their right to their own body, ends the
suffering and pain, and stops the family from being in a major amount of debt due to the medical
expenses.
There are different types of euthanasia. There is passive euthanasia which defined by
James Rachels in Active and Passive Euthanasia is "simply refraining from doing anything to

Gillis

keep the patient alive. In passive euthanasia we withhold medication or other life-sustaining
therapy...and let the patient die 'naturally' (107)." Rachels also defines another form, active
euthanasia, as "taking some positive action designed to kill the patient (106)." Voluntary
euthanasia is a method with consent and by request of the patient; involuntary euthanasia, on the
other hand, is a method without request or consent of the patient. Indirect euthanasia which
is when side effects from a drug or treatment result in ending a patient's life, is yet another form
of euthanasia that is ethically acceptable. Stated in Physician-Assisted Suicide: Legality and
Morality by Fred Levin, "It is ethically acceptable for a physician to gradually increase the
appropriate medication for a patient, realizing that the medication may depress respiration and
cause death." In other words, Levin is stating that indirect euthanasia, even if intentional, is legal
and ethical for a physician to implement. The last form of euthanasia is physician-assisted
suicide which is being prescribed a drug by a doctor that will end a patient's life.
Euthanasia is a necessary option for a patient with a terminal illness because it
allows the patient to exercise their right to their own body and their right to die with dignity.
Stated by Fred Levin in Physician-Assisted Suicide: Legality and Morality, "A competent
terminally ill adult, having lived nearly the full measure of his life, has a strong liberty interest in
choosing a dignified and humane death rather than being reduced at the end of his existence to a
childlike state of helplessness, diapered, sedated, incontinent." Levin's statement presents a
situation where the patient loses all bodily control and is now a child in an adult body suffering
pain and the loss of independence. Having the option of euthanasia can reduce this situation and
prevent the patient from having to endure through an embarrassing, uncontrollable ordeal until
they succumb to their illness.

Gillis

A commonly made justification for abortion is that the woman has the right to her own
body, just as a terminally-ill patient should have the right to their own body. Although abortion
is a widely controversial subject, people who are pro-life and people who are pro-choice can both
agree that if a fetus is detrimental to the mother's life, then the fetus can be removed. Stated by
John-Stewart Gordon in Abortion, "ii. Endangerment of the Woman's Life; there is no good
reason to proceed with a pregnancy when the woman's life is in serious danger. Potential life
should not be more valued than actual life." Gordon's statement is relevant to the euthanasia
issue because a woman has the rights to her own body when it comes to growing a fetus inside
her, and therefore a patient should have the rights to their own body when it comes to their
choice of death. Gordon also refers to the fact if a fetus is detrimental to a mother, much like the
terminal illness is detrimental to the patient, the fetus can be removed to save the mother's
actual life. Rather than causing a mother to suffer she is given a legal way out. Euthanasia
should be the legal way of ridding themselves of the detrimental and painful illness while
implementing the right to their own body.
"A person's last months of life should not be consumed suffering from severe physical
pain (Levin)." A terminally ill patient is typically only given a few months to live, and when
coming near to death suffer immense amounts of pain and lose control of their body therefore
making them "lose their sense of autonomy and their ability to enjoy life (Levin)." Levin is
pointing out that living the last few months of life in pain damages the ability to feel happiness
and stated by James Rachels in Active and Passive Euthanasia, "The maintenance of life by
artificial means is, in such cases, sadly pointless." There is not reason why a terminally ill
patient should be kept alive and in pain if they desire a different option. Rather than contributing
and helping this patient's life, the doctor is actually being more harmful. "As a result of medical

Gillis

technology, Americans are living longer, and when individuals finally succumb to an illness, they
linger longer and often in great pain (Levin)." Advances in healthcare and medical technology
throughout the years have provided a window where patients can live longer. This, however, is
not a statement saying that the illness is somewhat 'cured', it is simply stating that medications
can prolong the imminent, painful death and make the suffering that much longer, which is in no
way beneficial to the patient. Doctors are there to cure illnesses and provide comfort measures;
when it comes to a terminal illness there is no way for a doctor to prescribe a medication that can
cure the illness and therefore should then provide comfort measures instead. If the option the
patient chooses is to be euthanized, then the doctor would be performing his job description by
providing the comfort measure that the patient has requested.
Not only does the patient suffer through the prolonged illness but the family suffers as
well as they watch their loved one writhe in pain and slowly lose control of their bodily and
cognitive functions. "[D]ependent upon others for nutrition, hydration, and bodily hygiene; with
physical and mental deterioration; and experiencing declining vision, hearing, and mobility.
Family members, relatives, and friends should not have to witness the deterioration and
suffering of a loved one. The Ninth Circuit believed that suicide may even ease the family
anguish as the family will not be forced to endure the agonizing death of a loved
one (Levin)." Levin presents a clear situation of what a terminal illness can do to someone, and
no one likes to watch someone they love suffer and deteriorate. Levin says, "Our last
impressions of a loved one should be filled with joy and respect." Euthanasia can provide that
opportunity because the patient can choose to end their life at a prime time before their illness
takes over. Instead of crying around a bed of an individual who cannot even speak or remember
who is standing around him/her, the time can be spent bringing up past memories, laughing, and

Gillis

saying 'I love you.' Accepting death is a hard thing to adapt to and takes time, if a family is
awaiting a death there is always the hope that there will be another day and when another day
does not come it is that much harder to accept the death. With the option to choose death, the
family knows when the death will occur and will be more prepared and more accepting. It
will make life for the family after their loved one is gone easier to move on with and they will
have the cherished memories of happiness to keep with them forever. This can only be provided
by the legalization of euthanasia.
Being hospitalized for the smallest illnesses is already very expensive, now imagine
being hospitalized for a terminal illness, the expense just gets higher. Not only will
hospitalizations be a regular or full-time thing, but medications come along with it. There are so
many medications that need to be taken when diagnosed with a disease or illness that is harming
the body, over time the money will add up. If a person can be cured with these medications, it is
very worth it because the patient will get better and be able to come home. With a patient that is
terminal and is going to die anyway, it is pointless and unnecessary to spend all that money on
hospitalizations and medications in order to keep them alive a few weeks longer. It is nice to get
all the time possible with a loved one near death, but very financially burdening and very hard on
your heart when the day of their passing comes. Euthanasia will prepare the heartache rather
than postpone it temporarily and also reduce the financial bills. According to Levin $10,000 can
be saved per assisted suicide patient. That is a lot of money saved rather than spent on a death.
The money saved by the patient choosing assisted suicide can be used towards the funeral
expenses and celebration of their life. It will reduce financial debt while also providing the
budget for a well-deserved funeral that all loved ones can attend to remember the great moments
with the deceased.

Gillis

The opposing side of euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide argue that "each person's
body is created in the image of God. It is the property of God, and no one has the right to
destroy God's property (Levin)." This cannot be a clear and valid argument for everyone because
not everyone is a believer in God. Because religion does not have control over all of the United
States, this cannot be an implemented reason to keep assisted suicide illegal. Laws and rights of
the people overrule all of the United States and the right to their own body and their right to
choose is included in the rights of the people. What may not be widely known is that passive
euthanasia is actually legal in the United States and "these religions do recognize a persons right
to withhold or withdraw life-sustaining procedures (Levin)." The passive euthanasia that is legal
in the U.S. is what is called a 'living will', DNR, or advanced directive. What all three of these
options mean is that when a person dies or is declining in health they can sign a document that
gives healthcare providers and the physician the right to withhold treatment and life saving
protocols; a legal document that a patient can sign that will allow them to die. "If a doctor lets a
patient die, for humane reasons, he is in the same moral position as if he had given the patient a
lethal injection for humane reasons (Rachels)." Levin also reiterates what Rachels says when he
writes, "permitting a physician to 'pull the plug' or to allow a person to starve to death is
no different than providing a person death-inducing medication, and in fact, is less humane."
The 'living will' allows a doctor to withhold food, medications, and life sustaining procedures
and therefore can make a death intolerable, painful, and insufferable; and yet, is still a legal form
that a patient can request and sign. "Euthanasia is generally defined as the act, undertaken by a
physician, that intentionally ends the life of a person at his or her request (Pereira)." This
definition of euthanasia sounds an awful lot like what a 'living will' and DNR represent as
well, but euthanasia is not a legal procedure in the United States. Euthanasia is very similar if

Gillis

not the same thing as a DNR and it is unreasonable that euthanasia is the option with a negative
connotation surrounding it.
Another opposing argument is that family members can feel burdened in their old age and
choose to be euthanized to relieve the financial expense and burden from their family members.
"By 2006, the Royal Dutch Medical Association had declared that 'being over the age of 70 and
tired of living' should be an acceptable reason for requesting euthanasia (Pereira)." Levin also
states something similar to Pereira, "[M]any persons might resort to it to spare their family the
substantial financial burden of end-of-life healthcare costs." However, "In all jurisdictions, the
request for euthanasia or pas has to be voluntary, well-considered, informed, and persistent over
time...must be competent (Pereira)." This statement means that when euthanasia is legalized, no
one can be persuaded or convinced into making this decision because many competency tests
will have to be performed. Additionally, Levin states,
"the determination whether a person is 'terminally ill' and 'mentally competent'...might require:
reasonable waiting periods to prevent rash decisions, multiple medical opinions to confirm a patient's
terminal status and that the patient has been receiving proper treatment; psychological examinations to
ensure that the patient is not suffering momentary or treatable depression; witnesses to ensure a patient is
making a voluntary decision; and reporting procedures that would aid in the avoidance of abuse."

This statement states that a lot of tests would have to go into making sure the decision on
the patient's behalf is a truthful, competent choice in order to reduce coercion of a family
member or abuse by a doctor. If the option to prevent a long, painful journey to death requires
this amount of tests to make sure the decision is a legitimate request, it is worth it because it will
be a small amount of time confirming the decision compared to the long road of pain and
suffering that would inevitably happen. "When weighing these consequences, proponents for
assisted suicide argue that the benefits outweigh the costs, and that detailed legislation,

Gillis

education, and monitoring an help eliminate man of the potential negative repercussions
(Levin)."
Physician assisted suicide is legal in Oregon and has been legal since November 8, 1994.
There was a short time when there were adjustments made to the law, but since October 27, 1997
the law has been effective and still is today. Levin refers to 'Measure 16' of the Oregon Death
with Dignity Act in Physician-Assisted Suicide: Legality and Morality which is the law that
allows physician assisted suicide and this law implements the concerns mentioned in the
previous paragraph. "This legislation provides that an Oregon resident who is eighteen years
of age or older is permitted to request medication to end his life if: (i) such request is voluntary
and informed; (ii) the person is capable of making and communicating health care decisions; and
(iii) the person's attending physician and a consulting physician have determined the person to be
suffering from a terminal disease that will result in death within six months (Levin)." These
guidelines prevent this option from being abused and also prevents a patient from being coerced
into an option they do not really desire. It also allows the patient to be fully involved and
informed about the process they are going to participate in.
Euthanasia has more positive than negative effects and would require an intense process
to make sure the decision is a competent decision by the patient. Every person has a right to
choose what happens to their body and the right to live life pain free. Women are allowed to
make choices about what happens to their bodies when it comes to abortion, and terminal
patients should have this right to their body as well. Passive euthanasia is already legal in the
form of a 'living will' and DNR that essentially is the same process euthanasia would provide
except euthanasia would be quicker and less painful. "Every competent person should have the
decision-making authority over his or her life (Levin)." Lethal injection is already legal all over

Gillis

the United States, though not implemented by every one, capital punishment in the form of lethal
injection happens to be involuntary euthanasia. The lethal injection is generally the same
principle when it comes to euthanasia in the healthcare industry. The patient would be injected
with a drug that would induce death. The process by which euthanasia can be seen as a
competent decision would allow the patient time to be informed enough in order to make this
choice. It would greatly benefit the patient and provide them with the opportunity to die in peace
with their loved ones surrounding them. Imagine being back in that hospital room but instead of
waiting around for the terminal illness to strip independence and financial status, the lethal
injection is what everyone is waiting. While awaiting a peaceful, pain-free, and happy death,
memories and laughter are being shared with all family and loved ones surrounding the hospital
bed.

Gillis 10
Bibliography
Gordon, John-Stewart. "Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy." Internet Encyclopedia of
Philosophy. Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, n.d. Web. 17 Nov. 2015.
<http://www.iep.utm.edu/abortion/>.

Levin, Fred, and Martin Levin. "PHYSICIAN-ASSISTED SUICIDE: LEGALITY AND

MORALITY." Pensacola Personal Injury Lawyer. Levin Papantonio, 8 Mar. 2002.
Web. 17 Nov. 2015. <https://www.levinlaw.com/news/physician- assisted- suicidelegality-and-morality>.

Pereira, J. "Legalizing Euthanasia or Assisted Suicide: The Illusion of Safeguards and

Controls." Current Oncology. Multimed Inc., n.d. Web. 17 Nov. 2015.
<http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3070710/#_ffn_sectitle>.

Rachels, James. "Active and Passive Euthanasia." Active and Passive Euthanasia (1975):
106-193. 1975. Web. 17 Nov. 2015.
<http://web.stanford.edu/~mvr2j/sfsu09/extra/Rachels.pdf>.