Running Head: EUTHANASIA

Hot Topic Paper:

Euthanasia:

History of a Movement

Ruby Sabina

Frostburg State University

EUTHANASIA 2

Right to die, euthanasia, physician-assisted suicide, palliative sedation: these

are several of the terms we use to describe a current and important topic sweeping

our country and the world. Although this is prevalent in the news as we speak, this

has been a subject of contention throughout history.

The best way to explain this topic is to use an example. Imagine you are 40

years old. You receive a definitive diagnosis from several doctors of brain cancer

with only a few months to live. Over those months, you will lose control of all bodily

functions. Would you want to live out those months? Or would you want to choose

when and how you die? Euthanasia is when a doctor, with the patients express wishes,

ends someones life. The grey area here is great, however, because there are many

different practices that fall under this category. Euthanasia is when a doctor actually helps

the patient pass away. Physician- assisted suicide is when a physician gives a patient the

means to die and is aware that this is their goal, but does not actually help with the act of

death. Palliative sedation is when a patient who is in pain or extreme discomfort is

sedated until they pass away, often shortly after sedation takes place.

Even though this is an issue being hotly debated today, the history of euthanasia

goes all the way back to the Roman times. Many ancient Greek and Roman philosophers

considered suicide a good death, an appropriate and rational response to a wide variety

of circumstances (Dowbiggin, 2005, pg. 7). According to A Concise History of

Euthanasia, it wasnt until Christianity became widespread and the press became so

prevalent that suicide and euthanasia were considered a problem. It was common

knowledge that the poor, sick, and disabled, mired in misery, often took their own lives.

But when members of the advantaged classes with relatively fewer reasons to end their
EUTHANASIA 3

own lives killed themselves, it naturally fostered the belief that suicide was a mounting

social problem (Dowbiggin, 2005, pg. 29).

The legal precedent relating to euthanasia has a lengthy history in our country,

going back to 1976. The case of Karen Ann Quinlan in New Jersey was brought to suit by

Karen Ann Quinlans parents. Karen was in a persistent vegetative state and her parents

wanted her to be removed from the ventilator and allowed to die. In this case, the New

Jersey Superior Court originally died the parents request, but the New Jersey Supreme

Court later reversed this. A second case in 1990 was very similar, but with different

ending results. Originally, a state trial in Missouri authorized the patients tube feedings

be stopped, but this was reversed by the Missouri Supreme Court. The U. S. Supreme

Court upheld this decision. In 1997, the Supreme Court ruled on two adjacent cases that

asserted that the 14th amendment was being violated by a ban on physician-assisted

suicide. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the states in these cases, finding that a ban

on physician-assisted suicide did not violate the 14th amendment. One of the more

famous cases was one against Dr. Kevorkian. Dr. Kevorkian assisted a 52-year-old man

with Lou Gehrigs disease to die upon his wishes. He even filmed the death. The jury in

this case convicted Kevorkian of second-degree murder. Kevorkian helped with the

deaths of at least 130 people.

Finally in 2004 in the case of Bush vs. Schiavo, the circuit court in Florida

overturned a ruling signed into law by the Governor allowed Theresa Schiavos husband

to have her feeding and hydration tubes removed. Since then, Oregon, Washington,

Montana, Vermont, and New Mexico have instituted death with dignity laws. In the most

recent election last week, Colorado and the District of Columbia have followed suit.
EUTHANASIA 4

These two states follow the extremely popular case of Brittany Maynard who moved to

Oregon specifically to exercise her right to die. She was 29 years old and had a form of

terminal brain cancer. All over the World this topic is constantly in the news. Earlier this

year, the first child was allowed the right-to-die in Belgium. Belgium is the only country

where children are allowed to exercise the right-to-die. Even yesterday in Australia, a

historical vote took place that was only one vote short of passing right-to-die laws in their

Lower House of Parliament.

According to the pro-right to die group Death With Dignity, their movement

made big gains in 2016. Many states have legislation being introduced that might be

ruled on in 2017 including North Carolina, Maryland, and New Jersey to name a few.

Unfortunately, as is the case with many hot topics in our country, many people

feel there isnt just one right or wrong answer to the question of whether or not

euthanasia is an ethical practice. Although there seem to be many people who feel

strongly one way or the other, there are also a lot of people who support some type of

middle ground.

One side of this argument believes that in legalizing something like euthanasia we

are murdering people. According to the con-side of this argument, each life is valuable

and should not be ended. Every human life has inherent dignity, and it is unethical to

deliberately end the life of a suffering person or assist or enable another person to end

their life (Family Research Council, 2016). Many of these people take a very religious

stance (specifically Christianity) believing that suicide in any form is against the bible

and Gods wishes. They feel that life is a gift from God, and should be treated as such.

Also, they fear that physicians will be playing God. The argument can also be made that
EUTHANASIA 5

this might be a slippery slope. Something that begins with only being able to euthanize

patients with their permission could eventually move toward murder of people who are

unable to speak for themselves. It could even end up with people being euthanized for

strictly cost saving measures. A patient who might have a chance of recovering, but

would cost a lot of money to a hospital or center might be more likely to be euthanized if

these laws are allowed. They also believe the government should not have the right to

give one group of people (doctors) the right to kill another group of people (patients)

(Procon.org, 2016).

The other side of this argument believes that any person competent person should

be able to make this decision for themselves in light of a terminal illness or excruciating

pain. "The right of a competent, terminally ill person to avoid excruciating pain and

embrace a timely and dignified death bears the sanction of history and is implicit in the

concept of ordered liberty (ACLU Amicus Brief, 2016). These supporters believe people

should have a right to end their own suffering. One argument as well goes against the

idea of a slippery slope, a common legal argument. This argument asks for feasible

evidence that shows that this slippery slope might actually occur. There is a belief that

enough safeguards have an will be put into place ensuring this occurs in a safe, ethical

manner. Anti right-to-life people have argued that the Hippocratic oath speaks against

something like euthanasia, but advocates for the cause show that the Hippocratic oath has

been altered many times when necessary.

I am a big supporter of death-with-dignity. I truly believe that if a person has a

terminal illness and wants to end their life, they should have the right to do so. As a nurse

on a medicine floor, I have seen many patients who are in extraordinary amounts of pain
EUTHANASIA 6

but have no control over what they can do about it. I have heard family members speak

about how their suffering family member wouldnt want to live in certain ways. To me,

being against euthanasia tends to be a very religious standpoint and I believe religion and

law should be separate. I also believe that most places with right-to-die laws have very

important safeguards in place that would keep doctors from being able to terminate lives

without a safe series of checks and balances in place. According to an article in the

Washington Post, for example, the new bill just voted on in Washington D.C. has many

stipulations. The bill would allow terminally ill patients with less than six months to live

to request fatal drugs from a physician after consulting a doctor over a period of two

weeks, with two witnesses attesting that the decision is voluntary. Patients must ingest

the medication themselves without the assistance of doctors or family members, and

physicians can refer them to counseling if they think their judgment is impaired

(Nirappil, 2016).

My position on euthanasia also aligns greatly with the ethical theory commonly

thought of as being pro-euthanasia: utilitarianism. This is very interesting because this

ethical theory also aligns with the lens found in my ethical lens inventory: the

relationship lens. This lens captures the work of John Rawls and others in the prophetic

tradition who call us to fundamental fairness and encourage us to care for those less

fortunate (ELI). I truly believe the most good for the most people (the main school of

thought involved in utilitarian ethics) involves allowing people to choose when and how

they wish to die. This minimizes suffering for the patient and also for their family.

The topic of euthanasia will probably remain a hot topic for many years to come.

There is no simple solution. To many people it is an issue that carries heavy religious,
EUTHANASIA 7

racial, and societal implications. For this reason, it should be thought about carefully and

argued often. Hopefully in the process we can ensure patients are receiving the best care

possible and remain as comfortable as possible.

EUTHANASIA 8

References

"ACLU Amicus Brief in Vacco v. Quill." American Civil Liberties Union. N.p., n.d.
Web. 20 Nov. 2016.

Baird, Catharyn A., and Jeannine M. Niacaris. "Understanding the Ethical Lens
Inventory." Www.ethicsgame.com. Ethics Game, 2009. Web. 20 Nov. 2016.

"Death with Dignity Movement Making Strides in 2016 - Death With Dignity." Death
With Dignity. N.p., 15 Nov. 2016. Web. 20 Nov. 2016.

Dowbiggin, Ian Robert. A Concise History of Euthanasia: Life, Death, God, and
Medicine. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2005. Print.

"Family Research Council." Family Research Council. N.p., n.d. Web. 20 Nov. 2016.

"Legal Precedents - Euthanasia." ProCon.org. N.p., 13 Apr. 2009. Web. 20 Nov. 2016.

Nirappil, Fenit. "D.C. Council Gives Initial Approval to a Bill to Let Terminally Ill
Patients End Their Lives." Washington Post. The Washington Post, 01 Nov. 2016. Web.
20 Nov. 2016.

"Should Euthanasia or Physician-Assisted Suicide Be Legal? - Euthanasia - ProCon.org."

ProConorg Headlines. N.p., 17 June 2016. Web. 20 Nov. 2016.