Untitled Essay, Research Paper

Euthanasia

Euthanasia – is it killing or letting die? In the last thirty years,

this has been a highly controversial topic, the worldly morals versus the Christian.

Although there are certain instances where it is justifiably considered to be letting die,

it is essentially killing. ? Euthanasia comes from a Greek word, meaning "easy death,"

and is now often associated with the infamous Dr. Kevorkian. There are three types of

euthanasia – what doctors consider to be "letting the patient die," for instance

taking both conscious and unconscious patients off of life support, not reviving the

patient in case of a heart failure, et cetera. There is also assisted suicide. Dr.

Kevorkian and his suicide machine have made themselves known through this technique. The

machine injects a lethal dosage into the "patients" blood stream, killing then

painlessly within ten minutes.? The first type mentioned above is known as "active voluntary euthanasia."

This is where a conscious, mentally competent person, usually with a severe physical

ailment, loses the will to live. Many have said that keeping them alive is just prolonging

their death, a form of cruel and unusual punishment. They may ask that life support

equipment be disconnected so that they can die quickly, painlessly, with dignity. Most

doctors are trained to try their best to defeat death, or at least try to delay it as long

as possible. But if the patient is hopelessly ill, and would prefer to die, the doctor may

consult the hospital ethics committee, and take him or her off of life support. When taken

to court in these issues, the doctors defend themselves in saying, "I didn’t kill

him, I let him die." This is illegal throughout the United States and the rest of the

world, but it still is a common occurrence.? The second type, "passive voluntary euthanasia," is done when a terminally

ill patient’s or a patient in a persistent vegetative state’s (PVS) family chooses to take

their loved one off of life support. A PVS patient has no self-awareness or any awareness

of their surroundings because the cerebral cortex, the thinking part of the brain, id

dead. The brain stem, the part of the brain that controls the major organs of the body,

still works, though. A PVS patient will never become conscious again after entering this

state, will remain like this until he or she dies. They are not brain dead, however.

Technically, in the United States, brain death occurs when the brain tissue breaks down,

disabling the lungs and other vital organs, and requiring machines to keep the patient

alive. The family may choose to have the patient taken off of life support if they wish,

and if the doctors comply, it will be done. ?There was a case, though, where the doctor

said he had a "moral problem" in killing a patient and the parents took the

doctor to court. The judge ruled that removing life support "would be homicide and an

act of euthanasia" and said that "judicial conscience and morality" told

him that the doctors were dealing with the patient correctly. But the parents later

appealed to the Supreme Court and the decision was reversed, stating that the patient had

the right to refuse treatment.? The third and most hotly contested type of euthanasia is doctor-assisted suicide. Dr.

Jack Kevorkian and his suicide machine have become famous for his contribution to this

type of euthanasia. His first case, in 1990, involved Janet Adkins of Portland, OR, after

she found out that she had Alzheimer’s disease. She had seen the doctor on Donahue and in

Newsweek magazine, and contacted him. He outfitted his Volkswagen van with the suicide

device, and on June fourth, 1990, They drove to a local park in Michigan. The machine had

three bottles of liquid hanging upside down inside a frame. One had a harmless saline

solution in it; the next had a chemical that causes unconsciousness; the third had

potassium chloride, a compound that stops the heart. Kevorkian hooked Adkins up to a tube

similar to that on an I.V. She died in less than six minutes. According to Kevorkian, just

before dying, "she looked at me with grateful eyes and said, ‘Thank you, thank you,

thank you.’" The doctor then called the police and reported what had happened. He was

barred from using the suicide machine again, but four months later he assisted in the

suicide of two women. The question is, though, should euthanasia be legalized, is it ethical?

It is not ethical, and in almost all cases, it is murder. In the Netherlands, it is

already performed widely and openly. In November of 1991, voters in Washington State had a

chance to decide whether or not they wanted to legalize euthanasia, to make legal

"dying with dignity." It was voted in to legalize it under the following

conditions: the patient would have to be mentally competent, two doctors would have to

agree that the patient had less than six months to live, and the patient would be required

to ask for euthanasia in writing. But even though it was voted legal, when asked on

television, everyone asked said that they strongly believed that it was unethical. Said

one, "Rules against killing are not isolated moral principles, but pieces of a web

that form a moral code. The more threads removed, the weaker it becomes." Said

another, "Asking doctors to kill undermines the moral integrity and confidence in a

profession that heals, comforts, and protects life." Dr. Leo Alexander stated that

"the problem with euthanasia is the acceptance of an attitude that life is worthless,

can be thrown away. That attitude is in its early stages right now, but as it progresses,

so will our value of life drop. Anyone, the socially unproductive, the socially unwanted,

will be considered useless, will kill off our own species, our morals. It is a way of

mocking human life, turning ourselves into God, deciding who is fit to live and die, as we

push the real live God out of our lives." Says F. Schaeffer and C. Koop, "Every

life is pious and worthwhile in itself – not only to us as human beings, but also to God.

Every person is worth fighting for. We must use our constitutional processes, while we

still have them, to fight for the rights and lives of our older persons and persons with

disabilities."