Euthanasia

Euthanasia

An eight-year old boy walked in to his grandmother's room to find her not breathing. He instinctively called 911, not knowing what his grandmother's or mother's wishes were. That should have been the end to his grandmother's suffering, but it was not. In this instance, doctors insisted on keeping his grandmother on life support, despite his mother's request and his grandmother was incapable of articulating her wishes. She didn't want her mother on life support. Today in modern "democratic" medicine, physicians are suppose to serve and advise, and only in extreme situations of incapacities, emergencies, lack of available health care proxies, or patient's waivers of decision making should they decide for a patient. Euthanasia should be the decision of the individual, not family, not government, and not the medical community.

Euthanasia has many different meanings. Some consider euthanasia as meaning a gentle and easy passing, the good death of another, or mercy killing (Lane, 1). Others consider it to mean an intentional termination of life, by another, at the explicit request of the individual. This implies that the act would be initiated by the person who wishes to terminate his/her life, or some define it as to include both the voluntary and the involuntary termination of life (Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance, 1). Euthanasia is discussed in many places besides a hospital or doctor's office. It is also discussed in churches, philosophy classes, taverns, street corners, homes, medical societies, nursing classes, hospices, journals, and legislative assemblies (Lane, 2).

Many say they have good reasons to argue why euthanasia is a good thing. They use the argument that euthanasia is a cry for help (NCLC Department of Medical Ethics, 1). Others say terminal illness is so painful that death is the only way out. Some are concerned with what is in store for their future and would use euthanasia as an option. Then there are those who are wanting to die, but are incapable of performing their own demise, so they request help (Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance, 3).

Some people believe that euthanasia should not be the choice of the individual, but the people who are taking care of them. They argue that when an individual is not in a sound state of mind, they should not be in a position to make such drastic decisions for themselves. They feel that once an individual has lost their decision making capabilities, then someone else must make their decisions for them (Ontario Consultant on Religious Tolerance, 2). In 1994, 51% of the people in Oregon were in favor of decisions by proxy , and then in 1997, that percentage increased to 60% (Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance, 9). These people perceive it as their right to choose for another, when it has been deemed that an individual is no longer mentally competent.

Others have also said that family, the government, and the medical community should also be allowed to be involved in making medical decisions on behalf of a dying individual. There are those that say that immediate family members should be the only ones allowed to make decisions for their terminally ill relatives. Others say euthanasia is the answer for a patient with a long term terminal illness, and a long road of suffering and medical debt (Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance, 2). Some doctors have concluded that when an individual's demise is inevitable, they feel compelled to eliminate his/her suffering. If that is to include assisted suicide, they might take it that far. One such physician was Dr. Jack Kevorkian. He was chastised by both the medical community and society at large for his involvement in assisted suicide. He is now serving a ten-year prison term for second degree murder (Humphry, 2).

Euthanasia should be the choice of the individual, and not of the family. It should be the individual's right if they are cognitive and coherent. The Declaration of Independence states that our Creator has endowed us with certain inalienable rights, one of which is the pursuit of happiness. If this is what will make the terminally ill party happy, then why not? It should be the individual's right to die with dignity and lucidity (Lane, 7). A person should not be allowed to suffer on a long-term basis, just because the family is not yet willing to let them go. When a person is ready to die, they should be allowed to quietly pass away. Another point for not having family members involved in the decision making process is due to current laws. Families can be charged with aiding and abetting a person who willingly takes his/her own life (Lane, 3). Under the Criminal Code of Canada, a person can receive a penalty of up to fourteen years in jail for assisting the demise of a family member, albeit under the umbrella of euthanasia (Lane, 3). A person commits homicide when, directly or indirectly, by any means, causes the death of a human being (Lane, 3). There are family members that would rather run the risk of going to jail, knowing that the family member died peacefully, than allow them to suffer against their wishes.

Euthanasia should be the choice of the individual, and not by the government. As of now, one of the main proponents of euthanasia is Dr. Jack Kevorkian; he is currently serving a ten-year sentence for second degree murder in the State of Michigan. He assisted many people that have asked for his help to end their pain and suffering. The government, for now, has stopped him from helping with assisted suicides, in what others would consider justifiable, compassionate circumstances. These people now have to suffer until the very end (Humphry, 2). Because of civil court cases that have turned into criminal cases, many doctors have become reluctant or have refused to assist those people who have terminal conditions. The government does not know medicine or what stages the patient is going through. Therefore, the government has no right to give permission for terminal or long-suffering people to live or die. That should be the individual's choice.

Euthanasia should be the choice of the individual, and not of the doctors. Euthanasia is not defined as a physician's initiative to eradicate life, but as the initiative of the individual to orchestrate one's own demise (Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance, 4). For example, in the state of Oregon, euthanasia was approved by the voters. Doctors that deny terminally ill patients the right to die with dignity is unfair and cruel (Lane, 7). If their request was denied, that would be going against the tenth amendment, which states, the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution,

...