In 1973, George Zygmaniak, age 26, lay in the hospital paralyzed from the neck down due to injuries sustained in a motorcycle accident. George’s brother, Lester, was unable to bear the thought of his brother’s incapacitation and strangled George in his hospital bed. Lester claimed that George said he would “kill himself if he could.” In an age where disease can rip apart one’s life, how much suffering can one be expected to bear? This is a controversial issue both in law and religion. Even so, euthanasia can be the last resort for those who are medically suffering and no long wish to live.
Euthanasia is the willful putting to death of an individual with intent to prevent suffering. There are two ways to perform euthanasia. The first is passive, in which one simply denies the medical help needed for a patient to live. The second, aggressive, involves participating in an act that directly takes away the patient’s life. With a few exceptions, doctors and those of the medical profession tend to perform passive euthanasia.
Many Americans suffer from fatal diseases in which there is little chance or hope of survival. Often they are in extreme pain and discomfort due to their condition or even due to the treatment they receive. If such a person wishes to terminate his or her life, then who has the right to deny their wish? True, one can deny his or her wish by claiming that the patient is merely depressed. So how do we make the distinction between depression and existential despair? Studies have shown that depression associated with a terminal illness does not respond to antidepressant drugs. This means that the patient’s despair extends beyond depression. Why should one be forced to live with pain and despair? If a person is willing to end their life, one should not prolong that person’s suffering by refusing a last request.
Many people are against euthanasia due to their religious beliefs. They quote the commandment “Thou shalt not kill.” These people maintain that “Believers who truly want to achieve redemption should relish the idea of suffering to better understand the Gift of Sacrifice that Jesus gave them.[1] They believe that because Jesus suffered at His death, one’s suffering can bring them closer to God. And yet, while the bible does acknowledge suicide, such as Judas performed after he betrayed Jesus, neither God nor Jesus directly discusses euthanasia. One must also look at the fact that the writers of the Bible lived in a time where medical science was extremely limited. People usually died quickly and with little suffering from what we would today call a minor medical issue. In a sense, “People didn’t die because they disobeyed God. They died because they were sick.”1 Today’s illnesses cause more suffering than in biblical times. As time passes and conditions change, society must review its morals.
Many people oppose euthanasia because they believe that medical advances may someday occur that would cure a patient’s illness. This simply ignores the patient’s wishes and personal decisions. Who has the right to maintain a patient’s suffering based on a false hope for a miracle? Granted, miracles do occur, but they have been proven to be extremely rare. Only the patient has a right to decide if they will wait for a miracle or not.
Under a Washington statute, aiding a person who wishes to end his or her life constitutes a criminal act and subjects the aide to the possibility of a lengthy term of imprisonment. The statute states that “A person is guilty of promoting a suicide when he knowingly causes or aids a person to attempt suicide.” Violation of this statute can result in a maximum prison term of five years and a fine up to $10,000. This brings up the question of if the statute violates the fourteenth amendment, which has two decrees. The first decree states that no state may deprive a person of “liberty” without due process of law. The second ordains that no state may deprive any person within its jurisdiction of the equal protection of laws. The statute takes away one’s liberty to terminate one’s life. Therefore, it is the statute, not euthanasia, which is unconstitutional.
In fact, Congress overturned the statute by declaring criminal statutes unconstitutional in 1996. On June 26th, 1997, the Supreme Court ruled that the constitution does not guarantee the “right to die.” However, states are not precluded from passing laws that would establish this right. Many states, therefore, has established acts that allow euthanasia. Oregon, for example, passed the Oregon Death with Dignity Act (ODDA) in 1997. Linda Gazini, an associate professor at Oregon Health Science University, reports that “… doctors who received requests for assistance with suicides have found care for the terminally ill more intellectually satisfying than other doctors have.[2] Doctors find that ending a patient’s suffering is more satisfying then having to witness the pain and suffering the patient would endure while living. A doctor who has to witness this suffering is often described as feeling helpless and frustrated.
Yet another argument against euthanasia is the belief that people who are not terminally ill are not in a sane state of mind and do not really wish to die. On the contrary, many patients wishing to die are psychologically analyzed and found to be sane before euthanasia is acted out. Medical professionals treat the decision of euthanasia seriously, committing it only after all options have been discussed and the patient has been found to be in a sane state of mind. These decisions are not taken lightly, a fact that most people are ignorant of.
People who judge euthanasia to be unconstitutional should consider a patient’s pain and despair while terminally ill. Only the patient should decide whether to suffer or not, and one cannot judge their decision unless they themselves have been in the same position. Euthanasia does not deprive anyone of his or her spiritual beliefs. No single religion should dictate end-of-life decisions. “Physician aid-in-dying is a personal issue that should be reserved for the interactions and trust between patients and physicians.”1 Each person has the right to determine what is appropriate for him or her. The right to self-determination is a sacred right- in life and in death.
[1] Bender, David. Assisted Suicide. San Diego, CA: Greenhaven Press, Inc., 1998.
[2] Constance, Putname E. “Death With Dignity.” The Hastings Center Report Jul/Aug 2001:8
Baird, Robert M. and Rosenbaum, Stuart E. Euthanasia, the Moral Issues. Buffalo, NY: Prometheus Books, 1989
Benton, Richard G. Death and Dying. New York, NY: Littleton Educational Publishing, Inc. 1979
