Euthanasia Essay, Research Paper

Throughout the twentieth century, major scientific and medical advances have

greatly enhanced the life expectancy of the average person. However, there are

many cases where doctors can preserve life artificially. In these cases where the

patient suffers from a terminal disease or remains in a persistent vegetative

state or PVS from which they cannot voice their wishes for continuation or

termination of life, the question becomes whether or not the patient has freedom

to choose whether or not to prolong their life even though it may consist of pain

and suffering. In answer to this question, supporters of physician-assisted

suicide, including, Dr. Jack Kevorkian, believe that not only should patients be

able to abstain from treatment, but if they have a terminal or extremely painful

condition, they should be able to use the assistance of a doctor in order die with

as little pain as possible. Most people who support euthanasia believe they must

find a way to legalize it in the United States, because people with incurable

diseases who are in great pain deserve to die a painless death.

To understand euthanasia, it is best to distinguish between active and

passive euthanasia. Passive euthanasia involves the patient s refusal of medical

assistance. It involves the right to die which is protected by the United States

Constitution Fourteenth Amendment. The right to doctor assisted suicide, or

active euthanasia, consists of a patient s right to authorize a physician to

perform an act that intentionally results in the patient s death, without the

physician s being held civilly or criminally liable for having caused the death.

The passive form of euthanasia was first considered legal by the New Jersey

State Supreme Court in 1976 In the Karen Quinlan case. In the Quinlan case,

the New Jersey Supreme Court ruled that the parents of Karen Ann Quinlan ,

who had been in a tranquilized and alcohol induced coma for a year, could

remove her respirator. She died nine years later. Since New Jersey s decision,

all fifty states have made similar statutes which contain living will provisions.

However, although the United States Supreme Court upheld the Quinlan

decision, the 1990 case of Nancy Cruzan changed the ruling on passive

euthanasia. With the Cruzan decision, the Supreme Court stated that passive

euthanasia was legal but only for competent adults or those who are

incompetent but have previously made a living will. However, if the patient is

without a living will and incompetent, it becomes the burden of the family to

prove that there is a clear and convincing evidence to the affect that the patient

does not want to continue living in a vegetative state.

In the case of active euthanasia, there has been no Supreme Court ruling

determining whether the right to die, as used in passive euthanasia cases, can

be applied in active euthanasia cases. The decision is left to the individual

states. In 1994, voters in Oregon passed a referendum making it the only state

in the country that allows doctors to prescribe life ending drugs for terminally ill

patients. The law was not put into effect until last year. In 1998, Michigan voters

defeated a measure that would have made physician assisted suicide legal.

Currently, thirty-one states have made assisted suicide a criminal act.

Physician assisted suicide is generally recognized as illegal in

association with the definition of homicide, however it is very difficult to meet all

of the elements of homicide and conviction therefore becomes nearly

impossible. The fact that the U.S. Supreme Court has not reviewed a physician

assisted suicide case, creates a problem for the state courts in that there is no

definitive answer or ruling by which to decide. Most states have developed their

own laws to make doctor assisted suicide illegal. However, when a case comes

to trial it is usually dismissed either by the judge or by the jury. For example in at

least five of the assisted suicides which Dr. Jack Kevorkian was involved in, all

criminal charges were dismissed. So, the laws have been created, but when it

comes to convicting a doctor and sending him to prison, the law often breaks

down and the charges are dismissed or the doctor is acquitted.

In the case of the nineteen states which have not made decisions

concerning physician assisted suicide, the issue becomes less clear. Many of

these states have a hard time grouping physician assisted suicide with homicide.

The case in Michigan which excludes assisted suicide from homicide is Michigan

vs. Campbell. In the Campbell case, the court found that the term suicide

excludes by definition a homicide. Since, suicide is not a homicide, then

assisted suicide can not be labeled as a homicide. At the time of the appellate

courts hearing of the Campbell appeal, there was no other law stating what

crime an assisted suicide would fall under and the homicide charges were

dismissed.

Supporters against active suicide feel that it is the duty of physicians to

help and heal patients as opposed to aiding their exit from this world. They also

fear that the legalization of doctor assisted suicide may be abused by doctors

who do not feel that there is any hope for the patient and convince them to

terminate their life. The state also has an interest in the life of the individual. The

individual state was originally set up to protect the rights of individuals and to

see that the value of an individual s life and the value of life to society as a

whole is protected. The value of an individual s life includes their personal well

being and safety from harm, even if self inflicted. So, it has now become the duty

of the individual states to balance the interests of the state against the interests

of the individual patient in order to come up with a law which is accommodating

to both.

Supporters for active euthanasia believe that legislation against it is

violative of the fundamental concepts of liberty, freedom of choice, and self

determination. They base these beliefs on the content of the fourteenth

amendment to the United States Constitution. The voluntary choice between life

and death is to them, a basic human right which government has no right to

decide. The trend in the law seems to be obviously against the legalization of

physician assisted suicide. This is clear due to the thirty one states which have

already incorporated the act into their laws as being illegal. In the other states,

there is much controversy about it s legalization. The courts seem to protect

doctors from law suits, and patients from doctor s abuse.

In the courts view, passive and active euthanasia are two entirely different

things. One involves withholding of care which may or may not end up in death

and the other involves a doctor s administration of a lethal substance with the

specific intent of creating the death of the patient. In other words, one allows

death to occur without doctor intervention and the other is mercy killing.

Based on research, it seems clear that the effort to legalize active

euthanasia is one that is not going to go away in the near future. This is

especially due to the spread of the AIDS virus and other incurable diseases. As

of today, it seems the U.S. Supreme Court is not ready to make a ruling on

euthanasia. Currently, there are twenty one states which allow citizen legislation

through the use of the general election ballot. In these states, special interest

groups which support euthanasia have placed initiatives on the ballot. An

example of one of these groups is the California based Americans for Death with

Dignity or ADD. The ADD designed a statue, proposition 161, that would legalize

doctor assisted suicide. The statue was also created with extraordinary care to

provide all reasonable precaution to protect against the risks of legalizing the

practice of active euthanasia. One of the parts of the statue which works toward

the prevention of abuse is that the statue would only allow licensed physicians to

assist in ending someone s life. Although proposition 161 was not passed, the

ADD believes it is proof that the general population does believe in legalizing

physician assisted suicide. The act of taking a life is a serious one. The

American population seems to be split on the issue, as can be seen in the case

of capital punishment. Although, active suicide involves consent, the term

physician assisted suicide is difficult for lawmakers and the public to consent to

because of the term itself.