Life, Liberty, and Death

LIFE, LIBERTY AND DEATH 2

In the United States we live in a popular culture that treats innocent human life as a precious gift where anything should be attempted and/or administered to preserve it. However, the act of keeping a person alive against their wishes, is unconstitutional, unethical and down right cruel in some cases. I believe every individual has the right to their own body and life to do as they please so long as they do not harm others in the process. It is the purpose of this paper to briefly examine the constitutional responsibilities the people and our government have. The complex ethical reasoning on the opposing and supportive side of physician-assisted, and, more importantly, the rationale behind committing something as tendentious as suicide.

Amendment IX goes as follows: the enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. This particular amendment has been tirelessly argued by the late Dr. Jack Kevorkian. Dr. Kevorkian, a retired pathologist and trailblazer for PAS, believed that amendment 9 was the twenty-one most important words in the united states constitution and he was willing to challenge anyone that didn't agree. In fact, he was so dogmatic in his political beliefs, that he was imprisoned for deliberately breaking the law. Jack Kevorkian videotaped himself euthanizing Thomas Youk, 52, who was in the final stages of Lou Gehrig’s Disease. Succinctly, he was sentenced to serve a 10-25 year sentence for second-degree murder and the delivery of a controlled substance. Dr. Kevorkian is a perfect example of an American fighting selflessly to do away with an unjust law. To quote Thomas Jefferson, “If a law is unjust, a man is not only right to disobey it, he is obligated to do so,” and Jack Kevorkian did just that. Our founding Fathers fought to have laws that protect its citizens from a tyrannical government; forcing a person to suffer needlessly

LIFE, LIBERTY AND DEATH 3

because the law says so, is grossly unjust. I believe that every person has natural and private rights that cannot be taken away by the government. If a person does not have quality of life any longer, then it is solely their decision to die with dignity.

Thankfully, in this day and age, more and more doctors and lawmakers are accepting the idea of physician-assisted suicide. Unfortunately, it still remains illegal in most states. I feel that is because there are many moral and religious beliefs that have always viewed human life precious no matter the circumstance. Furthermore, the Hippocratic Oath is taken by physicians. This oath directly states, “first do no harm.” So, to assist a patient in ending their life, goes against their ethical standards. As previously stated, doctors are starting to shift their attitude on the age-old oath to “do no harm.” According to an article by Robert Lowe, Stuart Youngner, MD, stated, “We’re having a paradigm shift about what's viewed as harmful. People are getting used to the idea that death is sometimes the least worst alternative. It can be a deliverance. We've already accepted that legally and culturally when it comes to stopping life-sustaining treatment.” (Lowe, Robert. 2016). With that being said, there are still plenty of people that vehemently disagree with PAS. Quoted in an article by CNN, the Heritage Foundation states, “Physician-assisted suicide changes the culture in which medicine is practiced. It corrupts the profession of medicine by permitting the tools of healing to be used as techniques for killing. By the same token, physician-assisted suicide threatens to fundamentally distort the doctor–patient relationship

...