Shade 1

Tyee Shade

Professor Reynolds

English 1201

11 April 2021

Assisted Suicide Should Be Legal

When Oregon first legalized physician-assisted suicide in 1997, many were outraged,

particularly the religious community. While just as many saw the legalization as a great comfort

for their and their loved ones’ futures. The idea of allowing those on their deathbed to die with

dignity through physician-assisted suicide has been a prevalent topic for the last thirty years. A

topic that has been publicly cried against by the Catholic Church, but has been supported by the

American public for decades. Assisted suicide should be legal as it reduces unneeded suffering,

expands upon a freedom of choice publicly desired, agrees with modern, secular standard of

ethics, and has few secular arguments opposing it.

Assisted suicide has a long history, being outlawed in the western world as it has been

considered second-degree murder for most of modern history. The topic found new traction

surrounding Dr. Jack Kevorkian, also known as Doctor Death. Kevorkian, who died in 2011,

assisted the suicide of over 130 patients with his personal invention: a suicide machine

(Boerns 36). A largely controversial figure, he was placed in the spotlight by the media. He

received criticism from the Catholic Church and was proclaimed a murderer by a vocal

minority in the public. Much of the controversy surrounding Kevorkian came from his

simplification of his aid in dying procedures. He created a euthanasia device, that he dubbed

the “thanatron,” meaning “death machine” directly related the Greek god: Thanatos, a
 Shade 2

personification of nonviolent death (FRONTLINE 1). Kevorkian received criticism as an

abuser of aid in dying procedures as some of his patients were found to not be ill or suffering

from any extreme pain-causing condition. In a heavily disputed claim, five of these assisted

suicides, the autopsy could find no sign of physical illness (ABC News, 2006). Kevorkian’s

attorney claimed it was impossible for those Kevorkian helped to be autopsied as very few of

their names (thought to be less than 15 at the time of the case) were actually known to the

public and gathering the 69 patients that study claimed to have found would be impossible

without Kevorkian’s direct assistance (ABC News, 2006). Kevorkian was later sentenced to

ten to twenty-five years in prison, but was released on parole in 2007. Regardless of

Kevorkian’s fate, his legacy has had an impact on the world as his story has breathed new life

into the issue. According to Boern, assisted suicide by a licensed physician is now legal in

twelve states (by 2020) in the U.S (36).

Assisted suicide reduces suffering across the board. When the quality and expected joy

of one’s life is exhausted, it shouldn’t be considered abhorrent that one wants to end their life

before they are subjugated to endless suffering out of their control. As many in nursing homes

face a life that many do not believe is worth living. A compelling point brought up by Vice

President of End of Life Choices New York, which merged with Compassion in Dying New

York to form Compassion and Choices, and licensed doctor, Peter Rogatz who describes

assisted suicide being an issue that focuses on doctors being unable to stop their patients from

suffering as they are sworn to do (1). Assisted suicide reduces the pain suffer by individuals

and their families as well. A dying person on their deathbed shouldn’t have to suffer to

“preserve life.” According to Rogatz, pain is the start and end line of suffering. Suffer can

take various forms: it can be the inability to take care of oneself, the mental trauma of
 Shade 3

surviving past your friends and family members, or feeling like a drain on one’s living family

members (3). The worst part is that many do not understand that Aid in dying and expanding

the choices of those who feel the desperation Rogatz describes is a necessary step to heal the

crisis many on death’s door are experiencing in the modern world.

The pain and suffering of patients unable to maintain a quality of life is not the only

type of suffering reduced by assisted suicide. The families of these individuals also suffer as

they watch their loved ones endure the loss of their dignity feeling helpless to help. One

instance that I can bring up from my own life is the death of both of my grandmothers, the

first to go of which my father unfortunately was there to watch. Three years ago, my father’s

mother was rushed to the hospital after suffering a severe heart attack. When my dad arrived,

she was barely able to breathe and was later placed on a ventilator and given morphine. She

was wheezing and it was clear to my father that she was suffering terribly, yet my father could

do nothing for her. She died a day later, suffering needlessly on equipment for almost twelve

hours. In this situation, assisted suicide could’ve reduced suffering on both sides of the

equation, my father, and my grandmother. This situation goes to support the idea that assisted

suicide doesn’t only give comfort to those who choose it, but also comforts those in situations

who still want to go on, but find comfort in the thought that they have the freedom to take that

choice. An idea also evidenced by the effect of death with dignity laws in Oregon, according

to Barbara Coombs Lee, almost twenty percent of terminally ill Oregonians end up asking

their doctors about the laws, but an almost negligible amount of them will actually end up

using it (2). This makes it clear that the legalization of physician-assisted suicide soothes the

worries, but does not actively encourage people to dive into using the law.
 Shade 4

The second example, was my mother’s mom who at the end of her life, was unable to

eat and was sedated to prevent her from reacting to her horrible quality of life. The day she

died; my entire immediate family was there to see it. When I walked in, there was little more

than a skeleton coated in paper-thin skin. Her heart had given way after almost a year of

starvation and no quality of life, she was simply too ill to live in a way that to our family was

worth living. When asking both of my parents how they felt about the situation with their own

parents, they responded with simply: “I wish they had gone sooner, so I wouldn’t have had to

watch them suffer.” A few weeks after the death of my father’s mother, he asked me to never

let what happened to her happen to him—to help him end his own life when the day came that

he couldn’t walk, smile, and live on his own terms. Both of my grandparents had previously

asked my folks to not let them fester in the way they did, but due to legal restrictions—no

help ever came to them. Death with dignity may not be so important to some of us, but to

many in an aging population who must cope with death himself—it’s an inescapable thought

that brings great comfort and peace with the stark reality of the unthinkable void.

The opposition to the claim that aid in dying results in less suffering quote that those

who choose to take their own life are choosing to die as a result of untreated suffering and

thus their death is an unnecessary tragedy caused by a failure of society to recognize their

needs (USCCB 1). Such as the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, who claim that

doctors and nurses acknowledge that suicidal people often suffer from depression or another

mental illnesses and become unable to see another way out of their situation—feeling like

suicide is the only way for them to save themselves from their suffering (USCCB 1). The

main flaw in this claim is that it lists the problem of suicidal patients as a reason that assisted

suicide should be illegal, when the main problem addressed by the claim is a lack of treatment
 Shade 5

of depression and mental illness in those who qualify for aid in dying. Those who support aid

in dying support the idea that those who qualify should receive medical treatment for outlying

mental conditions. The treatment of previously existing mental illness and pain should always

be considered the first step in reducing the suffering of a patient, but after all options are

exhausted there is no good reason that a terminally ill patient shouldn’t be able to take their

life into their own hands and make the choices they feel are right for them. (Rogatz 1). There

is no disagreement that those who are considered for aid in dying procedures should be proven

to be sound of mind at the time of their request and throughout the entire process (Rogatz 1).

The consensus is prominent throughout the movement and is addressed on Rogatz’

organization’s website, End of Life Choices New York (End of Life Choices, 2021).

Assisted suicide should be legal because it grants those in high-suffering situations the

freedom to choose whether to live in endless suffering or not. It allows elderly and physically

destroyed individuals to take their fate into their own hands and keep their dignity. Losing

dignity for some, is a fate worse than death itself as evidenced by Lona Jones, a patient of Dr.

Kevorkian, a doctor who by many is thought to be a murderer for assisted over a hundred

suicides throughout his career. She and her husband left their home in Chester, Virginia so she

could receive Kevorkian’s help ending her life in Michigan (Boern quoting Adams, 1995).

Why would Lona Jones travel over 600 miles if it wasn’t a choice made of her free will,

according to her husband quoted in Boern’s article, “she feared ending her life helpless,

without dignity, far more than she feared death” (36). Many people in these near end of life

scenarios find themselves feeling scared, helpless, and unable to do anything to soothe their

pain because of laws that serve nobody. Sound-minded people deserve to be able to make

their own choices, even the choice to end their own suffering for good. It is clear on account
 Shade 6

of public opinion that many want the ability to make this choice, for themselves and their

families. According to Leanne Wade Boern, writer at The Torch, “polls consistently show that

about 70% of the public believes individuals should have control over their own deaths”

(Boern 39). If most of the public wants assisted suicide to be legalized, who are the minority

to prevent them from having access to such an important choice? Barbara Lee Coombs

outlines that the USCCB defies logic with their claims that adding a healthcare choice coerces

them to make that choice (2).

Those against assisted suicide have claimed that assisted suicide results in less

freedom for many of those presented with the choice. As according to the USCCB,

“apparently free choices may be unduly influenced by the biases and wishes of others.” This

argument claims that those around terminally ill patients may try to influence them to take the

path towards assisted suicide when otherwise they may not make that decision and promotes

the idea that those around these people are served by the deaths of their loved ones and family

members. This is an argument that isn’t supported by evidence, but instead speculates on the

reactions that elderly and terminally ill patients will have when tempted by assisted suicide by

their family members. The USCCB goes on to claim that it is constitutionally supported that

one shouldn’t have the right to take their own life, by referring directly to the Constitution, by

claiming that the founders of the United States stated that life is more important than liberty

and happiness as they ordered (USCCB 3). They equate the right to life as a reasoning for the

inability of a person to own their own life. A person’s right to life by sound reasoning,

includes their right to forsake it as well—just as one can forsake their own liberty and lock

themselves away of their own free will or choose to not pursue their own happiness in spite of

the constitution’s words. As written, the constitution simply states the government cannot take
 Shade 7

these things away from a person, but says little about the person’s own right to take these

things away from themselves. It is also obvious that the founders of the United States did not

place life before liberty or the ability to pursue happiness. In the Revolutionary War,

thousands of people fought and died to freedom, if liberty was not as important as life in their

minds—why was it worth fighting for? The correlation made by the USCCB is full of holes,

obvious to anyone using their head.

An important issue to address when concerning assisted suicide is the ethical

arguments that some make against it. Many of which are inherently flawed and do not agree

with the commonly accepted ethics of today’s modern society. Some claim that assisted

suicide is a form of murder, that it compromises the autonomy of the individual and destroys

the sanctity of human life. The authors of Physician-Assisted Dying is Justified by Accepted

Ethical Principles, Jean Mercier, Daniel Weinstock, and Wayne Summer state that “no one, of

course, doubts that murder is wrong. But its wrongness is due to two important factors: the

harm it does to the victim and its violation of the victim’s autonomy. Neither of these factors

apply to physician-assisted dying” (Mercier et al. 2). Assisted suicide is not murder, as it

doesn’t take the autonomy of choosing to live away from the patient in question, some

opposing death with dignity laws try to make the argument about whether murder is right or

wrong rather than whether it is murder at all, a tactic used against the legalization of abortion

in Roe V. Wade. The argument made by Mercier, Weinstock, and Summer is an ethical one

that focuses on the publicly accepted ethical standards of western society today. Murder

harms a victim by taking away their choice to continue to life, something that aid in dying

does not do—as all the autonomy in the decision is placed in the hands of the patient.
 Shade 8

The ethical opposition against physician-assisted dying also expands to other moral

quandaries other than that of murder, such as the arguments presented by Nancy Valko, an

advocate for the National Right to Life committee who lists six common facets of assisted

suicide supporting legislation in her article, Six things you must know before you decide

whether to support or oppose physician-assisted suicide. In her article, Valko’s first object of

discussion is that pain or suffering is not required for a patient to be considered for assisted

suicide, this is primarily because pain is subjective and cannot be medically measured in an

accurate and comprehensive way that would complement this issue. The proposed law

requires that the patient suffer from a “disease that cannot be cured” (Valko, 2020) which is to

prevent completely healthy or temporarily disabled patients from taking advantage of the law.

Valko fails to mention this detail, because she wants the reader to conclude that assisted

suicide is being used for people with moderate chronic health conditions. The second law that

Valko criticizes is the law that licensed healthcare providers cannot be prosecuted for helping

someone end their life as long as the patient requested it (Valko, 2020), her main critique of

the law is that it relies solely on the word of the physician. The reasoning for writing the law

this way is to prevent physicians from being actively afraid to help patients in this way and

giving them a defense in court. The patient still must request this treatment for it to be legal

for the doctor to administer, showcasing a genuine effort to prevent abuse.

Valko goes on to source that physician-assisted suicide isn’t as well documented as

other forms of medical care and that fact makes it evident that there is no shield protecting the

patient from social compulsion and medical hitches (Valko, 2020). She elaborates that the

primary requirement for assisted suicide procedures to be conducted is that two doctors must

agree and fill out the necessary paperwork, which is a safeguard in of itself. The problem that
 Shade 9

Valko identifies relies on a conspiracy between two physicians to approve a procedure that

they acknowledge to be risky or a result of compulsion from someone close to the patient,

which is highly unlikely and hardly makes sense considering that suicide is already legal and

a coercive family member would have little reason to get others’ involved in their “possible”

Machiavellian scheme. The next point that Valko outlines is that the cause of death in assisted

suicide cases must be falsified, which she claims is a direct violation of standards set by the

CDC, which are used to determine public funding (Valko, 2020). She states that this presents

possible problem of the next of kin never knowing how the patient died as doctors are

required only to recommend the patient inform their family, this isn’t a real problem as it

respects the private autonomy of the patient and does not inflict suffering onto the family of

the patient either. Valko’s claim seems to hold dearly the moral opposition against lying, but

the lie in this situation does not harm anyone, what one does not know cannot hurt them and

the law is written that way to ensure that the next of kin receive their inheritance and life

insurance claims on their loved ones, something that clearly does not serve to harm them in

any plausible way.

The fifth point that Valko makes is that assisted suicide laws supposedly promote

discrimination against those that were already considering suicide before their conception.

She says that the way the law is written that doctors are only required to recommend their

patient for counseling if the patient is determined to have impaired judgement on behalf of the

mental illness (Valko, 2020). This apparently leaves the hole in the law that those who aren’t

suffering from “impaired” judgment on behalf of their mental illness do not have to be

recommended for treatment and evaluation before they can take advantage of assisted suicide

laws. This supposedly promotes discrimination as it leaves room for the mentally ill to
 Shade 10

commit suicide under the law (Valko, 2020). However, this argument misses that mental

illnesses can be a result of many factors including situational factors, which play a large part

in the depression and anxiety of those who are bed-bound or terminally ill. The question isn’t

whether they are mentally ill or not, the question is are they clear enough of mind to make

their own personal choice? The final idea that Valko presents is that suicide spreads

throughout a community like a disease: one person committing suicide could jump to their

close friends and family and cause them to do the same (Valko, 2020). The claim doesn’t

make sense, primarily because it ignores that assisted suicide laws when correctly enacted are

designed to stop family members from having to watch their loved ones suffer against the will

of the loved one in question. Why would one commit suicide because their terminally ill or

elderly loved one asked to end their life of sound mind, would it not be more likely if one had

to witness their loved one suffer on a ventilator or bedridden unable to enjoy life any longer.

Many arguments against physician-assisted suicide are made by the Catholic Church, a

religious institution that should not have authority over the law. A point made by Boerns, “on

one hand, we have allowing or helping people to die. On the other hand, we have them

keeping them from dying through bio-medical technology. What distinguishes one from the

other? If one action is “playing God,” isn’t the other?” (Boerns 41). There are few who would

argue against Boern’s logic in this situation, it is a double-edged argument that has no

practical application. Extending one’s life through unnatural means has the same lifespan

altering effect as ending one’s life prematurely, all acts which could be considering “playing

God. (Lee 3).” As many of the arguments against aid in dying are religious, one would think

that many of the religious community oppose aid in dying. But that is not entirely true, there

is widespread support in the religious community as well (Lee 3). Although it should not be
 Shade 11

unnoted that religious authority does not translate to governmental authority and should not.

As referenced by Lee, it is not the government’s place to shove religious beliefs down the

throats of the American people, nor should their legislative actions favor a theological

standard of ethics in comparison to a secular standard. (Lee 3). Most Americans support aid in

dying and yet many policy decisions are made based on arguments made by organizations like

the USCCB.

In the end, aid in dying is a procedure that should be made legal. It decreases the

suffering of those in the positions it aims to alleviate. Many on their deathbed wish to

maintain their dignity and alleviate the pain and suffering that they are forced to suffer

through use of life-extending technology, that only serves to extend their plight. The amount

of freedom that aid in dying would give to those individuals is a good cause that is ethically

sound. Many of the arguments that wish to strike down assisted suicide ignore the fact that

suicide is already legal and defy basic logic. Those who want to prevent its legalization have

religious arguments against it that shouldn’t be applied to the lives of those who don’t hold

themselves to that creed or theology, they simply do not hold up to a secular standard of

ethics. Polls have concluded that 70% of the population wish to have assisted suicide

legalized and the minority shouldn’t have the ability to take that freedom away from them

(Boern 39). Those who feel comforted by the idea that their life is in their own hands, that

their dignity is in their own hands, that they don’t have to force their loved ones to watch

them suffer helplessly until the day the technology fails to keep death at bay
 Shade 12

Works Cited

"End of Life Choices New York". Endoflifechoicesny.Org, https://endoflifechoicesny.org/.

Accessed 24 Apr 2021.

"Euthanasia Devalues Human Life and Limits Individual Freedom." Euthanasia, edited by

Margaret Haerens, Greenhaven Press, 2015. Opposing Viewpoints. Gale in Context:

Opposing Viewpoints, link.gale.com/apps/doc/EJ3010134271/OVIC?

u=dayt30401&sid=OVIC&xid=8cc32971. Accessed 21 Mar. 2021. Originally published

as "To Live Each Day with Dignity: A Statement on Physician-Assisted Suicide,".

Lee, Barbara Coombs. "Aid in Dying Is a Moral and Just Health Care Choice." Ethics, edited by

Noël Merino, Greenhaven Press, 2015. Opposing Viewpoints. Gale in Context: Opposing

Viewpoints, link.gale.com/apps/doc/EJ3010431268/OVIC?

u=dayt30401&sid=OVIC&xid=9c01656c. Accessed 21 Mar. 2021. Originally published

as "Dogma vs. Dignity," www.huffingtonpost.com, 17 June 2011.

Mercier, Jean, et al. "Physician-Assisted Dying Is Justified by Accepted Ethical Principles."

Ethics, edited by Noël Merino, Greenhaven Press, 2015. Opposing Viewpoints. Gale In

Context: Opposing Viewpoints, link.gale.com/apps/doc/EJ3010431269/OVIC?

u=dayt30401&sid=OVIC&xid=0a4817a0. Accessed 21 Mar. 2021. Originally published

as "The Ethical Bases of Medical Aid in Dying," http://impactethics.ca, 21 Jan. 2014.

"Most Kevorkian Patients Weren't Terminal". ABC News, 2021,

https://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=94765&page=1. Accessed 21 Apr 2021.

Rogatz, Peter. "Legalizing Assisted Suicide Would Help Physicians Reduce the Suffering of

Terminally Ill Patients." Assisted Suicide, edited by Karen F. Balkin, Greenhaven Press,
 Shade 13

2005. Current Controversies. Gale in Context: Opposing Viewpoints,

link.gale.com/apps/doc/EJ3010035259/OVIC?u=dayt30401&sid=OVIC&xid=76a6a52c.

Accessed 21 Mar. 2021. Originally published as "The Virtues of Physician-Assisted

Suicide," The Humanist, 2001.

"The Kevorkian Verdict". FRONTLINE,

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/kevorkian/aboutk/thanatronblurb.html.

Accessed 23 Apr 2021.

Valko, Nancy. "Six things you must know before you decide whether to support or oppose

physician-assisted suicide." National Right to Life News, May 2020, p. 17+. Gale In

Context: Opposing Viewpoints, link.gale.com/apps/doc/A630512539/OVIC?

u=dayt30401&sid=OVIC&xid=e3c7fab7. Accessed 21 Mar. 2021.

Wade Boern, Leanne. “When ‘Going Gentle into That Good Night’ May Be the Right Decision:

The Case for Assisted Suicide.” Torch, vol. 93, no. 3, Spring 2020, pp. 34–

43. EBSCOhost, search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?

direct=true&db=a9h&AN=147990788&site=ehost-live.