Assisted Suicide
Forty-one year-old Peter Cinque was in the terminal stages of diabetes. He
was
blind, had lost both legs, and suffered from ulcers and cardiovascular
problems,
as well. He was being kept alive by a kidney dialysis machine. Then
one day he
asked his doctors to stop the treatment. As a conscious, rational
adult, he had
the legal right to determine what should or should not be done
to his body. But
the hospital authorities refused to honor this right until
he had been examined
by two psychiatrists to test his mental competence.
After this, the hospital
obtained a court order that required him to continue
with dialysis treatments. A
few days later, Mr. Cimque stopped breathing. He
had suffered from brain damage
and was in a coma. Only after this and two
court hearings in the hospital that
he was finally permitted to exercise his
constitutional right of
self-determination (Ogg 61). What an unfortunate
incident. Mr. Cinque was forced
to prolong his suffering due to a lack of
guidelines to ensure the right of
self-determination. For this reason,
euthanasia must be legalized in a way that
individuals to decide for
themselves what should or should not be done to their
bodies. That is, laws
must be strengthened and guidelines must be set to ensure
the right of
euthanasia will not be denied to people. The case for euthanasia is
justified
on three fundamental moral principles: mercy, autonomy, and justice
(Battin
18). First, there is principle of mercy. This means that one
ought to relieve
pain of another and that it is a doctor’s duty to relieve
pain and suffering
for the patients. Granting mercy sometimes require
euthanasia, both by direct
killing and letting die. Moreover, allowing
doctors to end the life of
terminally ill patients is more merciful than
allowing them to die slowly and
painfully. Second, There is the principle of
autonomy. That is, euthanasia is an
individual’s choice. It is the right of
those who have a desire to be free
from pain and total dependence on others
to end their lives. The degree of pain
experienced by one can never be fully
appreciated by another. Thus, no one can
decide for another, and no one can
take a choice away from another. Third, there
is the principle of justice.
Euthanasia is central to the liberty protected by
the fourteenth amendment
(Leo22). Again, every human being of adult years has
the right to decide what
should be done with his body. This also applies to
terminally ill patients
who are especially in need of choices. They are at a
situation in which they
must be allowed to decide for choices. They are at a
situation in which they
must be allowed to decide for themselves. Otherwise, it
would be
unconstitutional to deny them the freedom of choice in which every body
else
has. It would be a crime to deny them this right because they are at
the
mercy of other people. A lot of the terminally ill patients who wish to
end
their suffering by death are denied by doctors and hospitals and,
sometimes, the
law itself. Medical authorities often have to consult courts
when it comes to
the issue of euthanasia. They fear of the responsibilities
because they lack
concrete guidelines to exercise euthanasia. This only
results in prolonging the
suffering of the patients. According to Isaac
Asimov, "If a person is subject
to pain that won’t stop as a result of a
disease that can’t be cured, must
he or she suffer that pain as long as
possible when there are gentle ways of
putting an end to life?" (62). It is
absurd to put terminally ill patients
through painful treatments unless they
choose to, when euthanasia is available
as an alternative choice. Too often,
because of hospitals and court delays, many
terminally ill patients are
forced to prolong their suffering. Opponents of
euthanasia contend that life
is too precious for anyone to decide to end it.
Cardinal Bernardin,
arguing against euthanasia, states, "As individuals and as
a society, we have
the positive obligation protect life...not to destroy or
injure human life
directly, especially the life of the innocent and
vulnerable" (70). Another
opponent of euthanasia, Ph. Schepens, wrote, "A
society in which the
individual can exist only if he is wanted by others, and
who therefore ceases
to have absolute value" (26). In other words, they claim
that euthanasia
would lead to devaluation of human life because it would force
medical
professionals and patients’ families to judge the worth of other
lives.
However, their views are invalid. On the contrary, forcing hopelessly
ill
patients to continue their suffering and total dependence on others would
be
devaluation of human life. It is demoralizing for many of these patients
to be
in such a situation of continuous pain and helplessness. Recall Peter
Cinque’s
incidence at the beginning of this paper. If anything, his life was
devalued. He
was forced to suffer even more severely because he was denied
his wish of dying
to end his pain. Had he been granted his wish in the first
place, he would not
have to he through this torture. Terminally ill patients
like Mr. Cinque will
eventually die, and most of the time will be a painful
death. It would be much
more honorable to human life to respect these
patients’ wishes and give them a
choice to end their pain by euthanasia. This
is not to say that they should be
forced to choose death as a method of pain
relief. Those who choose to fight
their illness until the end should be
respected in the same way. The opponents
of euthanasia also use the "slippery
slope" argument to speak against
euthanasia (Leo 22). This argument claims
that once euthanasia becomes
acceptable for the terminally ill, it would
become acceptable for the less
seriously ill, the handicapped, the mentally
retarded, and the elderly. The
opponents fear that it would get out of hand,
and unjustified deaths would be
uncontrollable. This view, like the previous
one, is too blindly exaggerated. It
is for these reasons why laws must be
strengthen to ensure the right of
euthanasia, not to omit euthanasia,
completely, The laws that protect the
people’s right to euthanasia will, at
the same time, protect the people’s
right from euthanasia. It is not about
getting rid of the unwanted people of
society, but it is about a necessity of
choices for people who need choices,
such as the terminally ill. Thus, it is
necessary to have euthanasia legalized.
This would allow competent
patients to decide for themselves how they prefer to
be treated. They could
decide for themselves whether they prefer to either fight
their illnesses
with painful treatments or to end their suffering by euthanasia.
Patients
like Peter Cinque would not have to be forced to suffer. They would
be
allowed to determine their own destiny and worth. More important so,
terminally
ill patients could have an alternative choice available to them
when their pain
is becoming unbearable. The point is that they should be
allowed to decide for
themselves, when they are conscious or are incapable of
deciding for themselves.
Then their families and doctors can decide on
their behalf. The opponents of
euthanasia suggest that instead of having to
legalize euthanasia, better pain
relief would make euthanasia unnecessary
(Peterson 19). However, the fact is
that pain is not the only reason why
people seek euthanasia. Many incapable
patients fear the lost of control of
their bodily functions. They are
overwhelmed by the feeling of hopelessness
and mental anguish. Thus, reducing
the pain alone cannot solve the problem.
Other opponents of the legalization of
euthanasia suggest moving all
terminally ill patients into a hospice where they
can be cared for (Schofield
28). In a hospice, patients are visited, read to,
and kept in constant
contact with loving people. Doctors can care for the
medical need of the
patients and attempt to keep pain at a minimum. The
opponents claim that a
hospice would also make euthanasia unnecessary. Sure,
this plan will benefit
those who do not want to go through euthanasia, but what
about those who do?.
Patients will still be totally dependent on others and
forced to prolong
their suffering. There are always those who would rather die
than be totally
dependant on others. Why not just let them die to end their pain
and
suffering, and why not just let them die peacefully with dignity?.
When
euthanasia is legalized, terminally ill patients will have the choice to
end
their suffering and die with dignity. Those who wish to go through
euthanasia
will not have this right denied to them. They are free to judge
their wom lives
and free to exercise their right of self-determination. When
euthanasia is
legalized, patients will not be forced to have their pain
prolonged due to court
hearing or due to hospital bureaucracies. Lpatients do
not have to feel that
they are at the mercy of thers. Furthermore, doctors
will be free from the
burden of providing medical care to patients who are
hopelessly ill, especially
patients who wish to discontinue painfull
treatments. Yet, legalizing euthanasia
does not mean that society would force
pople to die when they are incapable or
when they get old. People would
simply be granted an alternative choice other
than having to go trough
prolonged and painful treatment. It is now clear that
euthanasia is a right
that cannot be denied to people. But in order to ensure
that this right is
not denied to people, our legislatures must take action. They
must provide
concrete laws to ensure that terminally ill patients have the ritht
to
choose. They must provide concrete guidelines for medical authorties to
act
upon. Moreover, we as citizems need to urge our legislatures to
strengthen the
laws to support euthanasia. We must stand together and speak
out to let them
know that a right cannot be denied to us. We need to have
euthanasia legalized
so that we have this choice available to us when needed.
And for those who are
hopelessly ill, legalizing euthanasia will allow them
to end their suffering and
die with
dignity.
Bibliography
Asimov, Isaac. "No Mercy." Euthanasia:
Opposing Viewpoints. Ed. Neal
Bernards. San Diego: Greenhaven Press,
1989. 62. Battin, Margaret Pabst.
"Euthanasia Is Ethical." Euthanasia:
Opposing Viewpoints. Ed. Neal Bernards.
San Diego: Greenhaven Press,
1989. 17-23. Bernardin, Cardinal Joseph.
"Protecting Life." Euthanasia:
Opposing Viewpoints. Ed. Neal Bernards. San
Diego: Greenhaven Press,
1989. 70. Leo, John. "Assisted Suicide’s Slippery
Slope." U.S. News and
World Report 16 May 1994: 22. Ogg, Elizabeth.
"Euthanasia Should Be
Legalized." Euthanasia: Opposing Viewpoints. Ed. Neal
Bernards. San
Diego: Greenhaven Press, 1989. 61. Peterson, Lynn. "Would Better
Pain
Relief Make ‘Elective Pain’ Unthinkable?" Washington Post 12 July
1994:
19. Schepens, Ph. "Law of the Jungle." Euthanasia: Opposing
Viewpoints.
Ed. Neal Bernards. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 1989. 26.
Schofield,
Joyce Ann. "Euthanasia Is Unethical." Euthanasia: Opposing
Viewpoints. Ed.
Neal Bernards. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 1898. 28.