The Case for Assited Suicide

By: Teddy Kulmala

Posted: 1/24/10

Euthanasia. Physician-assisted suicide. Mercy killing. They all mean the same thing: allowing a person suffering intolerable conditions to choose to end their own life. And they all evoke a host of negative connotations, from the Religious Right's claims that only God should decide life and death, to the publicized battle over Terry Schiavo's bed-ridden life, and prolonged death. The debate over allowing a terminally ill patient to end their own life with the help of a physician has become a clash of morals versus ethics, charged by religious conviction, patient rights, and physician responsibilities.

In the United States, the act of committing suicide or attempting to commit suicide is not a criminal offense, but helping someone commit suicide is considered criminal. Only three states-Oregon, Montana and Washington-allow physicians to administer lethal doses of prescription medication to end a patient's chronic pain and suffering. Like abortion, this is unpleasant to think about, but is of the essence when you're dealing with human life.

This entire debate can be summed up in the words of the title of a 1981 movie starring Richard Dreyfuss: "Whose Life Is It Anyway?" In this film, Dreyfuss plays an artist who becomes paralyzed from the neck down following a car accident. It follows his turmoil over the loss of his quality of life and his grim realization that it was no longer worth living. The conundrum posed to society is just that: Does a sane, competent individual have the right to make a totally sound decision that life has become too painful, too limiting? Maybe the patient's friends and family are also suffering by seeing the deterioration of their loved one. Or, maybe the patient realizes that his special condition places too much of a burden on his loved ones. Shouldn't a person be able to decide when enough is enough? Our government doesn't think so.

Conservative Christians say that we must respect the sanctity of human life and that only God can decide when a person lives and when they die.

I agree; life is a very precious thing.

I am unashamedly pro-life and believe that abortion is only permissible in few, if any, cases. But, how is it that these same Christians who preach about the sanctity of life, and the importance of forgiveness, whole-heartedly support the death penalty? When we execute an inmate, are we not killing a perfectly healthy human being that God has not yet called home? Aren't we instead choosing "an eye for an eye" over "forgiveness"? Aren't we "playing God" and deciding that it's time for this person to die? It boils down to the separation of church and state. Not everyone shares the same Christian beliefs as us conservatives and libertarians. So, not everyone views euthanasia as sinful or depraved.

Another common argument against euthanasia is that it conflicts with a physician's responsibility to their patients. The Hippocratic Oath-a promise by new doctors to ethically practice medicine-says, "I will use those dietary regimens which will benefit my patients…and I will do no harm or injustice to them." This begs the question, "What is harm?" Well, allow me to answer that with another question: What is life? What exactly are we protecting? By keeping a dying person on a feeding tube, or a comatose patient on a ventilator, they are technically living. Their body is functioning biologically, but how much satisfaction are they getting from their life? While doctors are preserving biological function, only the patient can decide to what extent they can live their life from a hospital bed. But, if they want to fight a disease to the bitter end, they still have that choice.

Similarly, the medical side of this controversy brings up a lot of red tape, for example, deciding if a patient indeed has shot at living a happy, fulfilling life after overcoming an illness. Doctors can't simply execute every cancer or Alzheimer's patient to spare them misery or to cut corners on treatment. Additionally, a physician must verify that the patient is indeed suffering from a deteriorating, terminal illness and not just someone who's clinically depressed and seeking to end their life.

This is not to be confused with the so-called "death panels" that have stirred fear in millions with the passage of health care reform in Congress. Many Republicans have alleged that the Democrats' health care proposal would include a panel of bureaucrats that analyze what a person's life is worth, and then grant treatment based on how much that person can contribute to society, while giving a cyanide pill to the sick, elderly-unproductive-members of society.

First of all, health care reform is a completely different ballpark that I can't even begin to discuss in one article. Second, Congress can't even understand that heaping mess of health care reform they passed, so I certainly don't know what's in it. I'm only pointing out that euthanasia has the potential for abuse, and the degree of government control in this practice will face serious scrutiny in years to come.

On the morning of August 12, 1987, my great uncle, William Lannes, woke up a little early. He walked out into his backyard with a 38 caliber gun his hand, put the barrel in his mouth and pulled the trigger. Startled by the sound of the gunshot, his 75-year old wife Rhea rushed to the backyard to find her husband of 53 years lying in a pool of blood at the back door.

Uncle William was an alcoholic with cirrhosis of the liver, emphysema, diabetes, and cataracts. 25 years earlier, his daughter died of Hodgkin's Lymphoma, leaving behind three young children. Uncle William never forgave God for taking his daughter. Stricken with grief and disability, he relied on Aunt Rhea for virtually everything. He eventually realized that he was a burden on his loving wife. He just had enough.

Had euthanasia been a viable option, Uncle William could have taken a pill or an injection and drifted peacefully off to sleep. His wife could have been there at his side to hold his hand and say "I love you" just one more time, and she could have been spared the grisly discovery of her husband's self-performed suicide.

Sadly, our government doesn't see it that way. They're still intent on controlling people's lives…and deaths. As a result, people are dying in serious pain and without a shred of dignity. But, what the government says goes. Just tell that to the quadriplegic that can't feed or bathe himself. Or the woman whose children have to change her diapers because she can't make it to the toilet in time. Or the Alzheimer's patient that forgets his grandson's name. Whose life is it, anyway?