Argumentative Report

To Be, or Not To Be...Alive: Euthanasia

Leticia Rivera

Prof. Matyakubova

English 210

October 14, 2016

Abstract

Controversy continues to swirl around the issues of legalized euthanasia. Euthanasia is the act of deliberately ending a person's life to relieve suffering. As many countries hesitate, legalization of euthanasia has significant potential risks, so it should not be legalized. The possible risks are danger of abuse, lack of implementation of safeguards, and decrease of palliative care. Euthanasia is legal in Oregon and contains substandard information; such as in 2014, 40% of people who requested euthanasia were concern about being a burden to their families. Oregon has also ignored the safeguard of seeking a psychiatrist for patients with depression who are seeking euthanasia. Palliative care is designed to help any physical, psychological, spiritual and existential suffering. This would allow for more clarification of why euthanasia is not legal is most parts of the world.

To Be, or Not To Be...Alive: Euthanasia

Jane Doe is 67 years old, and has advance stages of pancreatic cancer. She has recently suffered a stroke, and is no longer able to get off from the hospital bed. Her family is by her bedside, and all are discussing on what should be done to solve her suffering. Some family members are deciding euthanasia, as others are opposing to the idea. Euthanasia is one of the most pressing social concerns of our times and is defined as the act or practice of killing or permitting the death of hopelessly sick or injured individuals (as persons or domestic animals) in a relatively painless way for reasons of mercy (Merriam-Webster Dictionary). The etymology of euthanasia comes from the Greek word meaning, eu ‘well’ + thanatos ‘death’ (Merriam-Webster Dictionary). More importantly, euthanasia is also known as assisted suicide, in which a doctor is providing a lethal drug. There are a few basic arguments in favor of euthanasia, which are rights, mercy, and resources. Whereas, there are a few arguments against euthanasia, which is pressure on the elderly, undermines medical excellence, fear, and violates accepted codes of medical ethics. Euthanasia is legal only in the Netherlands, Belgium, Columbia, and Luxembourg. Assisted suicide is legal in Switzerland, Germany, Japan, Canada, and a few states in the United States, which are Washington, Oregon, Vermont, Montana, and California (New Health Guide). However, as many countries hesitate, legalization of euthanasia has significant potential risks, so it should not be legalized. The possible risks are danger of abuse, lack of implementation of safeguards, and decrease of palliative care.

It is harmful to have the choice of when and how to die because it can lead to a danger of abuse, especially for vulnerable patients. The existence of legal assisted suicide and euthanasia puts pressure on vulnerable people. In Oregon, where assisted suicide is legal, 40% of people who requested legal assisted suicide cited concern about being a burden as a reason for their decision (Oregon Public Health Division 5). Since there is no other legal option, our society accepts it as even if it would cost others time, money and effort, the ill, disabled and elderly people need to be cared for until their natural death. If euthanasia and assisted suicide laws were passed, then being cared for would be optional. In such a hopeless situation, there may be a chance that even when patients do not want to die, caregivers might not want to look after them any more. The person could also feel that their death would save relatives time and effort, enabling them to go on with their busy lives. Consequently, the pressure from caregivers might propel patients to give up their life. It is difficult to be sure if the decision towards euthanasia is voluntary or forced by others. Humans have the right to live, and nobody should force anyone to die against a will under any circumstances.

Figure 1 is from Minnesotans Against Assisted Suicide, which illustrates the statistics of assisted suicide patients in Oregon in 2014. On the Left side, the viewers notice a column of blue male and red female figures. On the right side, next to each pair of figures, the statistic reveals “40% feel like a “burden” on others, 97% were given lethal drugs without first receiving any psychiatric counseling, and 86% died without the prescribing physician present”. Sick patients in Oregon, who have made the decision to receive euthanasia, have either experienced a burden or didn’t follow any safeguard regulations, which connects us to the next risk.

The safeguards and controls for euthanasia are sometimes not closely inspected, and are not implemented. An important safeguard in Oregon is for patients with depression who are seeking euthanasia, would need to see a psychiatrist. Evidence has shown the safeguards are ignored and transgressed. Jose Pereira a medical student mentions in an article on illusions of safeguards and controls in Oregon:

In 2007, none of the people who died by lethal ingestion in Oregon had been evaluated by a psychiatrist or a psychologist, despite considerable evidence that, compared with non-depressed patients, patients who are depressed are more likely to request euthanasia and that treatment for depression will often result in the patient rescinding the request. In a study of 200 terminally ill cancer patients, for example, the prevalence of depressive syndromes was 59% among patients with a pervasive desire to die, but only 8% among patients without such a desire (3).

The evidence mentioned above demonstrates that Oregon ignored the safeguards. If the patients were treated for their depression, the choice of euthanasia could have been altered. When safeguards are not supervised, then euthanasia would be administered wrongfully. 

Correspondingly, palliative care and rehabilitation centers are better alternatives than euthanasia to help patients live in a pain-free life. There are many advanced technological devices and procedures which make it viable to increase the human life span and quality of life. Mary E. Harned a Staff Counsel for Americans United for Life discusses in a report, the outcomes of palliative care by indicating “Studies have revealed that when offered personal support and palliative care, most patients adapt and continue life in ways they might not have anticipated. Very few of these individuals ultimately choose suicide”(515). When good palliative care is provided to the patients, they may rarely want to end their lives. Palliative care is designed to help any physical, psychological, spiritual and existential suffering.

A common argument against this position is that terminal illnesses bring unbearable pain, which is the reason for euthanasia. Euthanasia quickly and humanely stops a patient’s suffering, allowing them to die with dignity. In this case, Brittney Marnard, a euthanasia advocate discusses in a documentary regarding dying with dignity “ The freedom of death with dignity, it exist because it is a choice. I chose this for myself, […] But my question is, who thinks they can sit there and tell me that I do not deserve this [euthanasia] choice”. Brittney demands it is a personal choice and a right to be able to decide when it is the right time to die, especially when one is suffering from a terminal illness. However, terminal is not always terminal. Sometimes developments in medicine allow their disease or condition to be treated, but not if they have already killed themselves. The Minnesotans Against Assisted Suicide uses an image (Figure 2) of Jeanette Hall, to display the positive reaction in not choosing to die. Along side of the image the organization stated “Jeanette Hall requested assisted suicide when she received a terminal diagnosis in 2000. Her doctor suggested treatment, and today she is cancer-free and happy she did not choose to die” (Minnesotans Against Assisted Suicide 4). Jeanette’s experience is an example of hope, she did not give up and now she is alive and well.

In brief, although many people are discussing the needs and benefits of euthanasia, legalization of euthanasia involves great potential of patient abuse, lack of implementation of safeguards, and decrease of palliative care. People on both sides of the debate care about suffering people and want to prevent intolerable suffering. The existence of legal assisted suicide and euthanasia puts pressure on vulnerable people, safeguards and controls not closely inspected. A far better response to human suffering would be to ensure the widespread availability of high quality palliative care. The option of euthanasia will lead to worse care for the dying, and perhaps even put pressure on loved ones and medical professionals who can no longer bear to see a patient suffer, or can no longer afford to treat their suffering. History has taught us the dangers of euthanasia and that is why there are only a few countries in the world today where it is legal. That is why almost all societies - even non-religious ones - for thousands of years have made euthanasia a crime

Works Cited

CompassionChoices. “Brittany Matnard’s Legacy: One Year Later.” Youtube. Youtube,

05 Oct. 2015. Web. 24 Oct. 2016 <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uzp0tp8Fzio>.

"Euthanasia." Merriam-Webster. Merriam-Webster, n.d. Web. 23 Oct. 2016.          <http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/euthanasia>.

Harned, Mary E. "The Dangers of Assisted Suicide No Longer Theoretical." 3.3 (2004):    58. Americans United for Life. Web. 23 Oct. 2016.

"Oregon’s Death with Dignity Act--2014." (n.d.): 1-6. Oregon Public Health Division.      Web. 23 Oct. 2016.

Pereira, J. "Legalizing Euthanasia or Assisted Suicide: The Illusion of Safeguards and         Controls." Current Oncology 18.2 (2011): n. pag. Web. 23 Oct. 2016.

“The Dangers of Assisted Suicide.” Minnesotans Against Assisted Suicide.2015. Web.     23 Oct. 2016.

"Where Is Euthanasia Legal?" New Health Guide. New Health Guide, 2014. Web. 23         Oct. 2016. <http://www.newhealthguide.org/Where-Is-Euthanasia-Legal.html>.