If someone should decide that he or
she wants to die, should that person be allowed the right to? This is a
long-standing debate. It reached the forefront of the national spotlight in
1990 when Dr. Jack Kevorkian assisted an Alzheimer’s patient in suicide (Cox
93). He had put together a “suicide machine” from $45 worth of parts from the
local hardware store (Cox 95) and its first use was for Janet Adkins, who was
really starting to feel the effects of Alzheimer’s Disease (Cox 96), a horrible
disease which has no cure, and still does not.
The big problem, and the focus of
this essay, is whether it is right for someone who is terminally ill and wishes
to die by his or her own hand, or by a doctor’s (at the person’s will,
effectively making it by the person’s own hand), instead of weeks, months, or
years worth of suffering later, should have the legal right to.
IDENTIFY
There are many issues at hand here,
which doctors, assisted suicide candidates, and the general public must deal
with when they deal with the topic of assisted suicide for the terminally ill.
One issue: the Hippocratic Oath.
Doctors take this oath at their graduation ceremonies from medical school (Cox
22). The oath states that, among other things, that doctors will not give a
deadly drug to anybody if asked for it (Cox 23). Many physicians say when asked
to hasten the death of an incurable patient: “I can’t. It is contrary to my
Hippocratic Oath” (Cox 22).
Another issue is that of the
advancement of modern medicine. Just a few decades ago, most comatose or heart
attack victims would have died in a matter of minutes or hours, but now with
the development of sophisticated machines like the defibrillator, doctors and
medics can jump-start an unconscious victim with an electric shock to the heart
(Cox 63). Although this machine has saved many thousands of patients, it’s also
left many revived but in a vegetative state. (Cox 63) Machines are available to
keep someone in such a vegetative state alive for years and years, although the
person in the vegetative state is brain-dead and therefore can get no enjoyment
out of life.
A third issue is what the United
States Constitution has to say about all of this. The fourteenth amendment
states that no state may deprive any person of “liberty without the due process
of the law” (Cox 81). Past Supreme Court decisions on this have pointed toward
a constitutional liberty of patients to refuse life-sustaining medical treatment, or refuse food and water
(Cox 81). Justice Sandra Day O’Connor has noted that if, before becoming
disabled, a person designates someone, such as a parent or spouse, to make a
life-or-death decision, then the constitution might very well require the state
to carry out those life-and-death decisions (Cox 82).
A fourth issue is the amount of pain
the patient will go through. Dr. Kevorkian claimed that his suicide machine was
“humane, dignified, and painless” (Cox 100). Many patients being kept alive are
in intense pain, which sometimes can not be killed even with the most intense
painkillers. But, can someone who is brain-dead feel pain?
It is my feeling that assisted
suicide for terminally ill patients, who will soon die anyway, albeit in much
more pain and suffering, should be legalized.
WEIGH
The solution I have proposed, that
assisted suicide for terminally ill patients should be legal, has several
supporting factors. First is the Constitution. The Supreme Court, as I have
stated before, has ruled in the past in favor of people refusing
life-sustaining treatment, and refusing food and water which are vital to life.
It is by no means a stretch that if someone should be allowed to ask the doctor
to turn off the IV, the same person should be allowed to in effect turn it off
himself or herself.
The second supporting factor is the
amount of pain. If an assisted suicide is done correctly, like how Dr.
Kevorkian administers it, then it is painless. Even if it is not painless, then
it is not a prolonged pain that lasts for years. This compares to the amount of
pain someone suffers if allowed to go on. Marjorie Wantz, a 1991 Kevorkian
patient, was afflicted with a genital-pelvic disorder that had become so
painful that her neighbors in her trailer park could hear her screaming in
agony at night (Cox 107). Heavy doses of painkilling Demorol and ten operations
didn’t help (Cox 107).
The other solution, contrary to
mine, is to have assisted suicide for the terminally ill be illegal. One source
of support for this is the Hippocratic Oath, which binds doctors to not give
out deadly drugs if asked for them. This same oath, however, binds doctors to
not perform abortions, nor use the knife (Cox 23). This oath is not relevant to
modern society, in which operations to save a life in the event of a heart
attack, for example, are commonplace and widely supported. In addition,
abortions are legal, although they too are contrary to the Hippocratic Oath.
Most people would not be able to justify a double standard as being right if
they sat and thought about it, yet that’s what this is. If abortion is legal
but contrary to an outdated Hippocratic Oath, why should assisted suicide,
which is also contrary to that oath, not be treated the same and legalized?
Plus, many modern medical schools give the “real oath” anymore, according to
Dr. Gregory Prince in his 1990 Classic Cases of Medical Ethics book (Cox
23). In addition to all of this, many ancient Greek physicians (Hippocrates was
an ancient Greek) disagreed with Hippocrates, who worshipped numbers as divine
and believed that all life was sacred (Cox 23). This was contrary to the
beliefs of most Greek doctors, who thought that life had certain limitations,
after which life could end (Cox 23).
Another argument for having assisted
suicide for the terminally ill be illegal is the classic sanctity of life
argument. As pointed about above, Hippocrates was a supporter of the sanctity
of life argument, believing that all life was sacred, no matter what. This
argument will get a lot of different responses from a lot of different people;
it is a highly personal issue for many. One tough question for sanctity of life
supporters to ponder is the following: Is there a difference between a life and
an existence? If someone is brain-dead, their body exists, but is he or she
really alive? This person can not think, requires machines to sustain simple
life functions like breathing, and can not respond to stimuli because the brain
no longer senses the stimuli. One common feature of all living things is that
they all respond to stimuli. Even plants respond to the stimulus of light.
If a plant is in one place, and the
light is in another, the plant will angle itself towards the light. Microscopic
organisms will respond to a stimulus too. If something hits it, it will move
away. A brain-dead person, though, will not move if you poke it. You could even
poke the person with a hot branding iron if you wanted to, and he or she would
not move away from it, because it won’t be felt, no matter where you stick the
branding iron. So, the person breathes with the help of a machine, and exists,
but it should be perfectly clear that the person is no more alive than that
machine.
JUSTIFY
The solution of allowing assisted
suicide for terminally ill patients can be well justified. First of all, if a
person is allowed to make his or her own decisions except to die, that’s not
fair. That’s a double standard. To eliminate a double standard here, the
legalization should take place. In addition to that, most deaths occur in
hospitals and convalescent homes, at great cost to families and taxpayers. From
a fiscal standpoint, it would be of benefit for the legalization to take place.
Because of the amount of pain savings, it would be of benefit there for the
legalization to take place. The Constitution, in saying that the state can’t
take away liberty with the due process of the law, means that the liberty to
end one’s own life when one is terminally ill, can only be protected of the
legalization takes place. Therefore, from the fairness standpoint, from the
fiscal standpoint, from the pain standpoint, and from the constitutional
standpoint, the legalization of assisted suicide for the terminally ill should
take place.
SUMMARIZE
To summarize, I have looked at the
argument that assisted suicide for the terminally ill should be legalized, and
the argument that it should not be. After analyzing the several points relevant
to the decision, I came to the conclusion that it should be legalized, because
it results in lower cost and less pain, eliminates a double standard, and goes
along with the fourteenth amendment to the United States Constitution.
Works Cited:
Cox, Donald W. Hemlock’s Cup: The Struggle for Death with
Dignity. Buffalo, NY: Prometheus Books, 1993.