Euthanasia

The term euthanasia comes from the Greek easy death, from euthanatos, with eu meaning good or positive and thanatos meaning death (M-W.com). Euthanasia has become an issue of increasing attention because of Dr. Jack Kevorkian's assisted suicides, and Terri Schiavo's tube removing. Dr. Kevorkian has assisted over nineteen suicides. Terri Schiavo was a 41 year old woman who fell into in a constant vegetative state because of an eating disorder she had as a teenager. In 1990 she fell into this vegetative state at the age of 26. On March 18 of 2005 her feeding tube was removed and on March 31 see was announced deceased. Only fifteen percent of Americans think doctors and nurses should always do everything possible to save a person's life. It also showed that eight in ten adults approve of state laws that allow medical care for the terminally ill to be removed or withheld, if that is what the patient "wishes", whereas only thirteen percent disapproved of the laws. Also seventy percent think the family should be allowed to make the decision about treatment on behalf of the patient, while another five percent think this is suitable only in some cases (Colasnto, 62). The results on mercy killing were even more surprising. Seventy percent think it is justified at least sometimes for a person to kill his or her spouse, if he or she is suffering terrible pain caused by a terminal illness. Even suicide is starting to be accepted. About half of the public thinks a "moral right" to suicide exists if a person has an incurable disease or is suffering with great pain with no hope of recovering (Colasnto, 63). About half of those with living parents think their mothers and fathers would want medical treatment stopped if they were suffering a great deal of pain in a terminal disease or if they became totally dependent

on a family member, and forty percent of their parents would want medical treatment stopped if daily activities became a burden (Colasnto, 63). A more recent poll conducted by Fox News and Opinion Dynamics shows that 59 percent of Americans said that if they were Terri's guardian they would have the feeding tube removed while only 24 percent would keep it in. The same poll shows that 74 percent would remove the feeding tube if they were in Terri's Schiavo's place, while only 16 percent would keep it in. Euthanasia should be legalized so people will only have to think about the difficult decision of the present and not about the consequences of the future.

As with any issue each viewpoint is supported by many reasons. Those who oppose euthanasia argue that the medical profession must always be on the side of "preserving life" (Schofield, 24). Another reason is euthanasia will lead to the "devaluation of life" (Low, 37). Also they think it will force doctors and family members to "judge the value of a patient's life". Critics also say that acceptance will spread from the terminally ill to the less serious ill, the handicapped, or the mentally retarded. (Russ, 117) Supporters of euthanasia say that a person has the right to a death with dignity. Another explanation is that a person should be allowed a "natural death" instead of a prolonged death with medical equipment (Battin, 19).

Death is one of the few things that all people have in common. This means that there are chances for anyone to face the decision of letting someone go. "Some terminally ill patients are in intractable pain and/or experience an intolerably poor quality of life. They would prefer to end their life rather than continue until their body finally gives up. Does the state have a right to deny them their wish?" (religioustolerance.org)

One reason people that support euthanasia give is a person has the right to die with dignity. People should be allowed to control their own deaths. Why should a patient be forced to live if they think their present standard of life has "degenerated to the point of meaningless", when doctors can no longer help, and perhaps the pain has become unbearable? At this point, if they person is of sound mind, they should have the choice to continue on or to die peacefully, even if they need assistance in doing so (Larue, 153). If the person is not able to make this decision there should be a few options, a living will, the family's choice, or the doctor's choice. A living will should be allowed to control the outcome if the person is unable to. If there is no living will the family, consulting with a qualified physician, should be allowed to decide for the patient. The one situation that is the most controversial is a patient with no family or no family member qualified to make the decision. Some think the doctor should be able to make the decision for the patient. The doctor should be allowed to decide if the patient has reached the point of only getting worse and is in considerable pain. In any of these situations a doctor should be at least an advisor; they are the ones with the medical knowledge and know the present condition of the patient and the alternatives. "In any humane or humanistic view of what is good, it is morally wrong to compel hopelessly suffering or irreversible debilitated patients to stay alive when death is freely elected" (Larue, 151).

In some cases like terminal illness "death is often better then dying" mainly due to the way that the person will die. They may have to go through a long period of pain and suffering. "Ask yourself which you would choose, early or prolonged death" (Larue, 153)? Even if you do not think that you would end your life or another's life should personal views decide that it is not the right thing for another to do? Does any person have the right to control the choices of others? Another argument is that not everything should be done to preserve a life. The natural balance of life and death has been disturbed by the advances of technology. No longer does a person die when they are suppose to; life support now prevents that. Opponents say doctors should not play God by killing patients but do they realize that by prolonging death the medical profession is doing exactly that? Christian Barnard, at the world euthanasia conference, was quoted as saying, "I believe often that death is good medical treatment because it can achieve what all the medical advances and technology cannot achieve today. And that is stop the suffering of the patient" (Battin, 21).

A different version of the same argument is doctors are not always responsible to do everything they can to save someone. If a doctor's duty is to ease the pain of his patients, then why should this exclude the possibility of letting them die? If a patient has a terminal illness and is in great pain and the patient thinks they would rather die now than continue living

...