Author: Armand Gjeka

Instructor: Rebeca R. Guy

Date: October 17, 2008

Killing or Allowing to Die

No other topic has ever challenged our hearts and our minds more

than euthanasia has. For thousands of years euthanasia has been one of the

biggest ethical, political and medical controversial issues that mankind has

yet to settle. Many argue that euthanasia should be globally legalized and

everyone should be granted the right to end their life whenever they face a

horrible sickness or unbearable pain. On the contrary, even a bigger number

of people argue that euthanasia it is not the answer to ease or terminate

someone’s pain and should be banned. It’s not hard to humanly reason and

“grant the right to die”-not much difference from kill in my opinion- to a

loved one who is suffering from Alzheimer’s Disease, but we ought to think

that by doing so we directly promote hopelessness, provide an unthinkable

tool not only for people with intolerant and incurable diseases but as well as

older and depressed people, create a slippery-slope for the perception of life

itself and devalues it, and most importantly, we violate every law provided to

us by nature, religion, moral, tradition….etc. etc.

I will give a brief background of “Euthanasia” and how did it all start. I

will then move on by pointing out the impacts that euthanasia has had in

United States, and as well as in the world. But perhaps, as equally important,

will be the summary of my paper, concentrating on the effect that it has had
Author: Armand Gjeka

Instructor: Rebeca R. Guy

Date: October 17, 2008

over the time for human social workers, and most important of all, how to

derive a solution for this legal, medical and ethical controversy: Euthanasia.

The term euthanasia comes from the Greek words "eu"- which means

‘good’ and "thanatos"= death,which combined means “well-death” or "dying

well". Hippocrates mentions euthanasia in the Hippocratic Oath, which was

written between 400 and 300 B.C. The original Oath states: “To please no

one will I prescribe a deadly drug nor give advice which may cause his

death.” Euthanasia can be tracked as early as forty B.C. and it was initially

used for animals whose sickness had no cure. In later years, such practice

was used for people who were infected with mortal, contagious sicknesses

whose cure could not be found and whose pain was unbearable for

themselves, as well as their family. In modern world, the old term “ good

death” has been upgraded and euthanasia is often now translated as “mercy

killing”

Since the 19th Century, euthanasia has raised many debates and

activism in North America and Europe. According to medical historian Ezekiel

Emanuel, it was the availability of anesthesia that ushered in the modern era

of euthanasia. In 1828, the first known anti-euthanasia law in the United

States was passed in the state of New York, with many other localities and

states following suit over a period of several years. After the Civil War,

voluntary euthanasia was promoted by advocates, including some doctors.

Author: Armand Gjeka

Instructor: Rebeca R. Guy

Date: October 17, 2008

Support peaked around the turn of the century in the U.S. and then grew

again in the 1930s. As of 2008, some forms of euthanasia are legal in

Belgium, Luxembourg, The Netherlands, Switzerland, the U.S. state of

Oregon, the Autonomous Community of Andalusia (Spain) and Thailand.

Nevertheless, even though euthanasia is legal in these parts of the world,

only the form of voluntary euthanasia is allowed. Voluntary euthanasia is a

direct act of killing, done at the direct request of the person being killed.

Whereas involuntary euthanasia is performed on a person who is

incompetent and that has not requested it. But why is euthanasia

condemned for the most part of the world? Does euthanasia take the

principle of double effect upon itself, or does it simply promote hopelessness

and a “slippery-slope”?

One of the most famous- infamous for most-physicians on the planet

was Dr. Kerkovian, who made a living helping people commit suicide.

Throughout the 1990s, Kevorkian waged a defiant campaign to help people

end their lives. His "suicide machine" - an instrument that allowed patients to

inject themselves intravenously with a lethal dose of potassium chloride -

became notorious. The man who came to be known as ” "Dr Death" was

linked to about 130 deaths, and was charged, tried and cleared in three

assisted-suicide cases. He was finally convicted of second degree murder in

1999 after injecting a lethal dose himself for the first time, into a patient
Author: Armand Gjeka

Instructor: Rebeca R. Guy

Date: October 17, 2008

suffering from a wasting disease”. (Sulmasy, 25) His and many others just

like him, argument about euthanasia remains the same, that people should

not be forced to live. Just like nobody has the right to take one’s life without

one’s consent, vice versa, nobody has the right to forcefully make someone

live without one’s consent. According to my research, this is the major

reasons that those in favor of euthanasia argue why euthanasia should be

allowed. It is not hard to agree with such reasoning, but as individuals, we

should be educated about what we request and why do we live day by day

obeying government and moral laws. It was hard to learn that Netherlands,

Switzerland, Belgium and Oregon embrace euthanasia, but at the same I am

glad that, as a humanity, we are able to clearly see the impacts that

euthanasia has had on these regions of the world, and to see the

hopelessness that it has promoted in the medicine world of these places.

In The Netherlands, more than two decades later, legalized euthanasia,

where doctors administer it, “nearly twenty per cent of the deaths of that

country every single year, nineteen and a half percent specifically, are a

result of euthanasia. One in five people in Holland are euthanized. Out of all

deaths each year in Holland nearly twelve percent are due to involuntary

euthanasia “ (Alters, 75)(involuntary euthanasia: where the patient has not

agreed to die nor requested so). A sort of equality-based slippage has indeed

happened in the Netherlands. Dutch courts began by declining to punish

Author: Armand Gjeka

Instructor: Rebeca R. Guy

Date: October 17, 2008

doctors who assist the suicides of the terminally ill. They then extended this

to those who are subject to 'unbearable suffering,' without any requirement

that they be terminally ill. They then extended this to a person who was in

seemingly irremediable mental pain, caused by chronic depression, alcohol

abuse, and drug abuse, on the theory that the suffering of the mentally ill is

'experienced as unbearable' by them, presumably comparably to how the

physically ill experience physical suffering. “Dutch courts then extended this

to a fifty-year-old woman who was in apparently severe mental pain caused

by the death of her two sons, again on the theory that her suffering was

intolerable to her”. (ProCon.org) Once a principle is established according to

which a human being can be killed because he/she suffers, then logically it extends

to all those suffering. If a human being is killed who requests it, it can be applied to

all human beings who request it, even if they undergo minimal suffering or do not

suffer at all.

Thank to the “generous” supreme courts of the countries that have allowed

and have legalized euthanasia, the path that legalized euthanasia will channel, it is

for all too obvious. Similarly, but perhaps not too obvious, will be the path for

human social professionals. A gradual defragmentation of social services core

values will take place if assisted suicide or euthanasia is legalized. Some of these

core values that fuel social service workers to go on, are respect for diverse cultures

and values, support of self-determination, and the right of people to have access to

quality health care and the resources that they need to cope with life’s difficulties,
Author: Armand Gjeka

Instructor: Rebeca R. Guy

Date: October 17, 2008

and to develop their potential. For a social worker whose job is to support and

lessen the pain inflicted by an inevitable illness or even severe temporary condition,

the very principle of this job would dramatically change. It is by virtue of our very

own character to always choose the easiest road, and this includes all of us, even

social workers. Advising a person who is suffering with early on-set Alzheimer’s

Disease for example, about what to do, despite the fact that they could still have

many happy years to live before the disease sets in, would not be as hard anymore,

if euthanasia was allowed. The life itself would not have the same importance, not

to ordinary people, nor to social workers. The life of others to social workers would

seem like a dispensable belonging. Eventually, social services wouldn’t even be

needed and would disintegrate entirely, since for any terminal illness they might

face, or eventually, even if life becomes a bit rough, they will have “Euthanasia”

and “Assisted Suicide” to turn for help. No need for social services. An issue that

should raise a very fundamental question: How can we stop this from occurring?

What is the cure for such affect not to infect us? The solution is very simple: Prevent

the government and the Supreme Court from legalizing it.

Granting the right to die to someone is unthinkable but having no say in it, is

inarguable and understandable by many. But the right to live is much more

important. Voluntary euthanasia, as defined previously does not conflict with any

laws, but its path and future, clearly does. Voluntary euthanasia, if legalized

becomes involuntary euthanasia or assisted suicide, not different from homicide.

Even “Dr. Death” has recently admitted that assisted suicide is almost, if not all,

homicide. So there is a very crucial question to be addressed: Who gives the

Author: Armand Gjeka

Instructor: Rebeca R. Guy

Date: October 17, 2008

government the right to allow doctors to take the life of a patient in exchange of a

handful of cash? Therefore not only as social workers, who views life as the most

important aspect of one’s being, whether sick or perfectly healthy, but we all have

to protest against the legalizing of euthanasia and assisted suicide. One voice could

make a difference, but all of us could change the world. After all, such matter should

not be left to laws passed by a handful of politicians, but should be left to laws given

us by nature; should only be left to God to decide who lives and who dies.

Work Cited

1. P. Kiernan,Stephen. “Maybe I Can Make You Laugh”. Last Rights.

Stephen P. Kiernan. St. Martin Press, NY. 1998. 103-108

2. Alters, Sandra. "Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide." Death and Dying: Who
Decide. Ed. John McCoy. Detroit: Gale, 2005. 57-79

3. Sulmasy, Daniel, “Voluntary Euthanasia Is Unethical”.

Euthanasia: Opposing Viewpoints. Ed. James D. Torr. Greenhaven

Press, San Diego. California 2000. 24-33

4. Velleman, David. “Against The Right to Die”. Death in the Clinic.

Ed. Lynn A.Jansen. Lanham, Maryland. 2006. 49-66

Author: Armand Gjeka

Instructor: Rebeca R. Guy

Date: October 17, 2008

5. M.Kleespies, Philip. “The Wish to Die”. Life and Death Decisions.

Phillip M. Kleespies. Washington,

6. Mclean, Sheila. “Assisted Dying: Reflections On The Need For Law

Reform”. Sheila A. M. McLean. Routledge-Cavendish, NY. 2007.

27-190.

7. ProCon.org. "Founding Fathers on Religion in Government."

UnderGod.ProCon.org. 16 July 2008

<http://undergod.procon.org/viewresource.asp?resourceID=70>.