Autumn Buzzell

November 22, 1999

Argumentative Essay

Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide: It's Murder in the First Degree

On June 4, 1990, Janet Adkins committed suicide. She killed herself under the supervision of a
man named Jack Kevorkian. Again and again, Kevorkian set up machines and killed patients that
were supposedly terminally ill. He escaped punishment for years, but on March 26, 1999,
Kevorkian was incarcerated for second-degree murder. (Online,99) He had developed many
friends and many enemies. One of his followers was a woman who had developed coronary
artery disease. Her name was Donna White. She thought about suicide often, especially when her
pain was incredibly intense. Help found her before euthanasia did. A hospice care facility heard
about her plot to commit suicide, and they found help for her. They provided therapy for her
suicidal thoughts and severe depression, and they also provided her with the medication to keep
her pain free. She no longer follows Kevorkian's ideals and is against him instead. (Shapiro and
Bowermaster, 94) Over 52 patients were killed in "Dr." Kevorkian's presence. (Online, 99) What
if they could have found the help that they needed?

Euthanasia is ending one's life if one has a terminal disease is an incurable condition, and is done
by a lethal injection. Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide began in ancient Rome and Greece. They
believed that it was okay in certain situations to allow a person to die or to help a person die.
This was often the case with the elderly in these cultures. Certain religions are against
euthanasia. The Christian, Jew, and Islamic religions all cling to the fact that life is sacred and
should not be taken away. In some cultures, helping someone to die is the same thing as
homicide, and is treated so in a court of law. (Encarta, 98)

Passive euthanasia, or negative euthanasia, is where a doctor or another person does nothing to
prevent death, therefore allowing the person to die. Passive euthanasia is not always wrong. It is
allowing a person's body to take a natural course of death. Active euthanasia, or positive
euthanasia, is when a doctor or another person takes direct action to cause death. (Grolier, 98)
Active euthanasia is extremely wrong. It is murder and should not be allowed.

Assisted suicide and active euthanasia is not natural and is extremely unethical. Often times, the
effects of painful diseases or severe depression are the cause of suicidal thoughts that result in
euthanasia. Jonathan Gould and Lord Craigmyle, authors of Your Death Warrant?, put the
suffering of pain in perspective. They say, "Pain and suffering are inescapable at times in life,
and sometimes attend its end" but "Pain, it is to be remembered. . . Generally pain can be
considered natural and wholesome although unpleasant." There are ways to take away the pain
that accompanies deaths. There are so many more choices than poisoning the body unto death. In
fact, "medical killing of sick persons would create far more distress, suffering and pain, directly
and indirectly, than it would relieve." (Gould and Craigmyle, 71) The number one rule of
medicine is that "doctors shall not kill". This regimen has been a priority since the teachings of
the well know physician, Hippocrates. (Shapiro and Bowermaster, 94) Some doctors often let
their murders slide behind the name of euthanasia. Kevorkian did that very thing. He killed over
52 patients behind the name of euthanasia. By legalizing euthanasia, the United States of
America is setting licensed murderers out on the street.

Those in support of euthanasia fight for the right to "die with dignity". They argue that a lethal
injection is natural. One must argue with their ideals. Injecting a foreign chemical into the body
for the sole purpose of harming the body is not natural. Euthanasia is, in fact, "intentionally
making someone die, rather than allowing that person to die naturally". (Online, 98) It is often
found that those who argue for the right to "die with dignity" are often the ones who are not
terminally ill or in the older generation. This fact was proven in a Harvard study that read, "79
percent of those ages 18 to 34 believe a physician should be allowed to give lethal injections to
the terminally ill, but only 53 percent of the older Americans agree." (Shapiro and Bowermaster,
94) Therefore, What are those that are pro-euthanasia arguing for? For their future, or for the
death of those who no longer can serve their community?

Every once in a while, the older generation of this country is pressured into selecting
euthanization as their course of death. Often times, the elder members of families feel as though
they are a burden and, sometimes, they are not of sound mind when they are given the choice of
euthanasia. One such instance of that is the case of Kate Cheyney. She was one of the first to be
euthanized in the state of Oregon. She was diagnosed with cancer. Once the extreme discomfort
set in, her daughter began to press the subject of euthanasia. She was given a psychiatric
evaluation to ensure that she was of the right mind. Her psychiatrist could see that her short-term
memory was fading and dementia was setting in. Still, he signed her waver and she died by
physician assisted suicide. It was not the clean-cut death of dignity that she underwent. It took
over an hour of pain for her death to be complete. (Barnett, 99) This illustration reveals one
small, but important fact. Though Mrs. Cheyney requested physician-assisted suicide, her
daughter, who felt as if her mother was a heavy burden, pressured her into the choice. Her short-
term memory was also failing, proving that she was not of right mind to make that decision. One
recent study showed that out of the people seeking physician-assisted suicide, "75 percent cited
fear of 'being a burden', while only 35 percent gave 'experiencing severe pain" as a reason."
(Shapiro, 96) But even the fact of the pain is irrelevant to most people. Joseph Shapiro of U.S.
News and World Report found that "five out of six of the reasons a patient says he wants to die
are something the medical establishment can treat." Often a person with an ailment or disease is
put rest because of the burden that it can cause a family member. It was said by a "Euthanasia
Society's spokesman: 'Dying is still often an ugly business, but where should we end up once we
admitted the principle that a man may be killed for the benefit of someone else?'" (Gould and
Craigmyle, 71)

Those who are for euthanasia argue that the psychiatric evaluations given to patients who are
suspected to not be of sound mind, solve the problem of whether or not they are able to choose
the "right to die". They also argue that family members of those who are prepared to be
euthanize are very supportive. When in fact, not all psychiatric evaluations are complete or true,
and not all patients are given an evaluation. The fact is that family members are often supportive
only if they choose euthanasia or assisted suicide. The authors of the website, Euthanasia.com
found that "emotional and psychological pressures could become overpowering for depressed or
dependent people. If the choice of euthanasia is considered as good as a decision to receive care,
many people will feel guilty for not choosing death. Financial considerations, added to the
concern about 'being a burden,' could serve as powerful forces that would lead a person to
'choose' euthanasia or assisted suicide." Therefore, it is proven that family members and doctors
often have persuasive powers over the person in question.

The most important truth about euthanasia, assisted suicide and mercy killing are all forms of
murder and, ultimately, homicide. It should be against both the law of the nation, and the law of
the heart, because it is unethical. "This issue touches medicine at its very moral center; if this
moral center collapses, if physicians become killers, or are even merely licensed to kill, the
profession&emdash;and, therewith, each physician&emdash;will never again be worthy of trust
and respect, healer and comforter and protector of life in all its frailty. For if medicine's power
over life may be used equally to heal or to kill, the doctor is no more a moral professional but
rather a morally neutered technician." (Opposing Viewpoints, 89) Unfortunately, physicians can
legally murder in the state of Oregon. Still, this quote applies to every state. Physicians who can
kill and can commit a homicidal crime, become loose in their morals and accordingly lose their
trust as a caretaker, a healer.

Committing this type of murder devalues human life. These doctors act as gods instead of
humans&emdash; judging whether life or death shall prevail. The doctor's job is to heal, to try as
hard as they can to save the lives of those who are presented before them. Doctors and nurses
cannot be gods. Much of the time, they do not understand that what the patient really needs in his
or her last days is the love and respect of those around them. In fact, in one study based on "600
ventilator-dependant adults with debilitating neuromuscular conditions" who were asked
"whether they were satisfied with their 'life as a whole,' and fully 82 percent responded
positively. Only 24 percent of doctors and nurses predicted such positive answers."

Take for instance, Dr. Bry Benjamin. Benjamin once gave out a lethal dose of medicine to an
older couple suffering from cancer. For years, he had to "wrestle with this ethical dilemma" and
". . .his conscience. . . alone." (Mattos and Sachs, 96) He will never forget the death sentence that
he gave that elderly couple.

In closing, an unnatural death is unethical and should not be permitted. It is the poisoning of a
body and may be performed by a licensed doctor. This doctor, a person committed to curing the
body of diseases and making it healthy, is committing murder. Murder that should be charged as
homicide in a court of law. Euthanasia is a fever that has swept across the country, especially
with Jack Kevorkian's aid. The country is sick with "right to die" flu and it is time for the doctors
of the United States of America to heal them. They need to start with reorganizing their morals
and placing their patient's health and healing at the top of their list. Eventually the country will
begin to realize that life is much more important than the emphasis they have been placing on
death.

 
Bibliography

Unknown Author. "Euthanasia: Frequently Asked Questions". 1998. [Online]. International

Anti-Euthanasia Task Force at Euthanasia.com. Date of download: November 21, 1999.

Available: http://www.iaetf.org/faq.htm

Unknown Author. "Kevorkian Timeline". 1999. [Online]. Euthanasia. Date of download:

November 15, 1999. Available: http://www.angelfire.com/al/jefspage/index3.html

Barnett, Erin Hoover. "Is Mom Capable of Choosing to Die?". 1999. [Online]. The Oregonian.
Date of Download: November 15, 1999. Available:
http://www.oregonlive.com/news/99/10/st101719.html

Cassel, Eric J. "Euthanasia". Grolier Interactive Inc.. 1998 Euthanasia.

Gould, Jonathan and Craigmyle, Lord. Your Death Warrant?. New York: Arlington House, 1971.

Mattos, Jennifer and Sachs, Andrea. "Defining the Right to Die". Time. April 15, 1996. Pg. 82

Rosenbaum, Stuart E. and Baird, Robert M. "Euthanasia: The Moral Issues". 1989. Opposing
Viewpoints. New York: Prometheus Books.

Shapiro, Joseph P. and Bowermaster, David. "Death on Trial". U.S. News and World Report.
April 25, 1994. Pp. 31-39.

Shapiro, Joseph P. "Expanding a right to die". U.S. News and World Report. April 15, 1996. Pg.
63.