A Right To Die

Jennifer Kendrick

     In today's society we are living longer than ever thanks to medical advances and breakthroughs in scientific research. Medical conditions such as diabetes, asthma, high blood pressure, heart conditions, and anemia are now treatable, and can result in minimal debilitation if diagnosed and treated properly. Unfortunately, science has not given us the gift of treating and curing all issues that may ail us, even though they have made substantial advances in modern day medicine. For people suffering from long term debilitating issues, living a longer life is not always considered to be a gift of modern technology.  Some people would rather have the right to die than have to live their lives in constant agony or psychotic nightmare.

     If you were debilitated to an extreme, and had to suffer long term, due to these advances and a doctor's ability to just barely keep you living, would you want to live? Imagine searing pain non stop throughout your day. Feeling drugged all day, every day, because you have to stay medicated to tolerate the eternal agony that your life is consumed with. Imagine living that life for the next 20 years or more. Would you still want to live? Would you want your loved ones to suffer as well while they watch you endure a lifetime of sadness and devastation? Would you want your family to live their lives dealing with pain if you chose to take your own life? Or, would you want the right to have a physician assist you with ending the suffering for you and your beloved? If you're one of the many people who would want the right to physician aid in dying (PAD), I hope you live in Washington, Oregon, or Montana. Currently those are the only states in the United States that allow PAD to be practiced legally. The fact that only three states allow this right to be exercised is problem that needs to be addressed. We are all responsible for our own bodies, should we not have all rights to our bodies, even the right to end our own life if we were competent and could make a logical choice to do so?

     At the age of 3 weeks and 4 days old, I made the decision to allow my first born child to be relieved of her suffering through what is classified as passive euthanasia. She was born at 25 weeks gestation, suffered multiple birth defects, was genetically abnormal (Trisomy 21, also known as Down's Syndrome), and suffered from many life threatening organ problems and developmental issues. Physicians spent hours in surgery reconstructing a poorly developed heart when she was 3 days old, and only 2lbs 8oz . Numerous hospital employees spent a multitude of hours and effort trying to sustain her life, and provide hope for her future. At the end of their attempts, it was rather certain that she would be facing a lifetime of suffering, if she were to possibly even pull through the ordeal. At that time, her physician consulted with me about stopping the medications that were keeping her sustained. She passed away peacefully in my arms at 4:23 am July 10, 1996.

     Euthanasia is the process in which the actions of a physician causes the death of a patient. This practice is usually performed through the administration of life ending drugs. Physician aided death is where a physician provides medications or other means by which a person can self administer their own demise. The issue of euthanasia/PAD is a very complicated matter. There are multiple types of euthanasia to be considered. Passive euthanasia is considered to be letting a person die. This can occur by removing feeding tubes, ventilator breathing devices, or other life sustaining devices or medications. In itself it does not cause the death of the person, merely allows the process of death to occur sooner than would have if the patient had continued with the treatments provided. Non-voluntarily euthanasia is when a person does not express their own consent to end their life. This can occur in cases of patients with mental deficiency, patients who are incoherent and have no physical form of expressed consent, or patients who are too young to make the decision for themselves. Voluntary euthanasia is when a competent person decides to make the choice of wanting to end their own life with the assistance of a physician (“Euthanasia Definitions”).

     Due to laws governing euthanasia/PAD today's physicians have to be very careful about their treatment and actions involving their patients. Currently there are only 3 states in the United States that have state level laws allowing PAD. This does not mean that the doctor's in these states can be unconcerned about possible ramifications if they assist in the death of their patients. In June 1999 a bill was entered into the United States House of Representatives called the “Pain Relief Promotion Act of 1999.” This bill intended to “amend the Controlled Substances Act to promote pain management and palliative care without permitting assisted suicide and euthanasia, and for other purposes”(United States Congress). When this bill was enacted physicians now faced a new and rather complicated dilemma. They were being encouraged to use controlled substances to help ease the pains of their patients, but at the same time allowing death to come sooner due to increased pain management medications. Quite the conundrum that the physicians faced. Not only the physicians, but the terminally ill patients as well. This bill made it legally permissible to administer drugs that would increase the rate that death would come upon the patient.

     So it is now legally permissible, is it not morally permissible? In an article featured in the Boston Review , the author poses the argument that “We may permissibly cause death as a side effect if it relieves pain, because sometimes death is a lesser evil and pain relief a greater good. We may permissibly intend other lesser evils to the patient, for the sake of her greater good. Therefore, when death is a lesser evil, it is sometimes permissible for us to intend death in order to stop pain,”(Kamm 1997). So logically speaking euthanasia is legally and morally permissible. Granted, the period of time that these medications would take to end life would be longer than the actual administration of rapid life ending medications. Does that make it more moral or legal?

     When Oregon passed the “Death with Dignity Act” residents of the state worried that Oregon would become flooded with terminally ill patients wanting to establish residency in order to be eligible for PAD ( Kitzhaber 1997). New laws with good intentions sometimes cause the risk of misuse of the law. John A. Kitzhaber, medical doctor, and former Governor of Oregon argued against the bill. He claimed that “if such a bill becomes law, physicians will be less likely to administer adequate amounts of the drugs that can curb the pain of the terminally ill.” Kitzhaber also argued his concerns that higher doses of pain relief medications for patients would instill fear in their physicians, stemming from the possibility of causing unintentional deaths. He worried that if such a bill entered into law, “Such fear on the part of physicians could result in the under treatment of pain for dying patients.” Indeed this was a substantial fear, whereas the residency issue was just population fear in general. Fears are not facts however. The fact is that only 15 people chose to end their own lives during the first year after Oregon residents had the right to do so (Lunge et al.).

     There are a multitude of moral, political, and ethical issues as well. Religious issues include the problem with a human taking life instead of the Creator. Many religions do not believe in the right to euthanasia. They often times attest the suffering to part of what a higher power has intended for someone, and that ending a life would be against the will of whatever higher power they worship. Would a higher power not be merciful and understand that someone chose to end their suffering?

     One ethical issue is the fact that physicians take the Hippocratic Oath. “I will not give a lethal drug to anyone if I am asked, nor will I advise such a plan” is part of the oath that a physician takes when entering practice ( Edelstein et al.). Is breaking that oath really that unethical when it means allowing a suffering person to find peace?

     The issue of legalizing PAD is seriously complicated . There are so many different views and opinions, none any more correct than their opposing side. We all have a right to feel however we choose about our lives and deaths. The problem is that our current laws do not represent those people who feel that they should have the right to make a life ending decision for themselves if faced with the situation. Whether we base our feelings about PAD on ethical, moral, or religious reasons, we are still entitled to our own individual feelings. Should we not be also entitled to the right to exercise our right to make our own decisions in regards to how we feel?

     More states need to follow the path that has been laid out by three states currently respecting their citizen's rights. More legislation needs to be passed to represent those people who are currently suffering and waiting for change. Legislation ensuring the best effort in providing medical treatment benefiting life and existence, but legislation also allowing for the more terminally ill patients to have the right to put and end to their strife. You could call it a right to move on. A right to die.

Works Cited

Congress, United States. Pain Relief Promotion Act of 1999: 

     Hearing before the Subcommittee on the Constitution of the 

     Committee on the Judiciary, House of Representatives, One 

     Hundred Sixth  Congress, First Session, on H.R. 2260, June 24, 

     1999. Washington: U.S. G.P.O., 2000. Print.

Edelstein, Ludwig, and Herbert Newell Couch. Hippocrates, the 

     Oath: Or, The Hippocratic Oath. Chicago: Ares, 1979. Print.

"Euthanasia Definitions." Euthanasia Suicide Mercy-killing Right-

     to-die Physician Assisted Suicide

     Living Wills Research. Web. 30 Nov. 2010.

Kamm, Francis M. "A Right to Choose Death." Editorial. Boston 

     Review. 1997. Web. 30 Nov. 2010.

Kitzhaber, John A. "Congress's Medical Meddler's." Washington 

     Post National Weekly 8 Nov. 1999.

     Web. 30 Nov. 2010.

Lunge, Robin, Maria Royle, and Michael Slater. "Oregon’ Death 

      with Dignity Law." The Vermont

     Legislature. 2004. Web. 30 Nov. 2010.