Euthanasia: Sanctity of Life vs. Quality of Life

So...this is an old essay of mine, but I thought if fit with ProgressiveU's theme of blogging on current events, progressive values and public policy priorities.  Hopefully I can just copy and paste..... Sorry, I don't know where my works cited went...but I had sources to back up all of my ideas and quotes....now all I know is the last name....unless this teacher was the one that made me introduce each source before citing it

(edit:  I fixed the formating, so now it's not so much of huge block paragraphs)

Euthanasia: Sanctity of life vs. Quality of Life

The room seemed filled with the patient’s desperate effort to survive.  Her eyes were hollow, and she had suprasternal and intercostals retractions with her rapid inspirations.  She had not eaten or slept in two days.  She had not responded to chemotherapy and was being given supportive care only.  It was a gallows scene, a cruel mockery of her youth and unfulfilled potential.  Her only words to me were, “Let’s get this over with.”(32). 

           Jonathon D. Moreno, Director of the Division of Humanities in Medicine and Professor of Pediatrics and of Medicine at the State University of New York Health Science Center, in his compilation of essays Arguing Euthanasia  included this one entitled “It’s Over, Debbie.”  This unsigned piece first appeared in Journal of the American Medical Association in 1988, and spurred a controversy.  The dying woman mentioned above was a mere 20-year-old-girl by the name of Debbie dying of ovarian cancer.  “She was having unrelenting vomiting apparently as the result of an alcohol drip administered for sedation.”(Moreno, 31).  A gynecology resident on call came to Debbie, and without any other consultation drew 20 milligrams of morphine sulfate and injected it intravenously, finally giving Debbie “something that would let her rest and to say good-bye.”(32).  Because of this doctor’s intervention, Debbie was able to die peacefully with dignity.  However, the question arises, whether morally and ethically this particular doctor should have administered a lethal dosage of morphine to Debbie.  Is this murder or mercy-killing?  Despite the unprofessional manner in which he relieved Debbie, I believe that this doctor did the right thing in compassionately allowing her to end her life of suffering.  In the case of Debbie, and in many others, Euthanasia is the most merciful way to allow someone of extreme illness to pass on.

            Although Euthanasia is seemingly merciful, to others the question is not about the right to die, “it is about the right to kill”.(Reasons for Euthanasia)  From a religious perspective, Euthanasia is murder, and that is a most grievous sin.  For Christians as well as Jews, the ten commandments clearly states “Thou shalt not kill”, and that can include the killing of oneself, or the killing of another, no exceptions.(Exodus 20:13).  In this way, they believe that only God can take away life, taking the life of another person would be “playing god”, so to speak.  However, Gerald A. Larue, president emeritus of the Hemlock Society, in his book Playing God: 50 Religions’ Views on Your Right to Die, points out that “there is no single religious position concerning euthanasia.”(Larue, 8).  In fact, religiously, there can never be one specific answer for every Euthanasia case, so it is often up to the person, or people involved whether or not it is “the right thing to do”.  Also, even if mercy-killing is wrong, wouldn’t prolonging life for the sanctity of life prevent someone’s soul from returning to its rightful place in the universe?  If someone is in a persistent vegetative state, how then can you trap someone’s soul inside their body, preventing them from going to heaven on the grounds that you don’t want to be liable for “killing” them?

            Another argument that from those that oppose Euthanasia is the “Slippery Slope Theory”.  Gerald A. Larue said that according to this theory, “once medically assisted euthanasia is legalized for the terminally ill who request it, legalized killing of other groups will automatically follow and even become compulsory.”(Larue, 21)  The elderly, the impoverished, the physically and mentally handicapped, or those who depend on welfare for survival, are the members of these “other groups.(21).  Admittedly, this idea is extremely disturbing, because it is entirely possible that the elderly might be coerced into accepting euthanasia, and their loved ones would be persuaded to allow this so that they would not have to watch them suffer.  Even more shocking is the comparison of Euthanasia to that of the actions taken in Nazi Germany.  However, Larue points out that over 90 percent of people over the age of sixty-five are self sufficient, in reasonably good health, and are in the community outside of an institution. (30). Also, the “Slippery Slope Theory” takes into account the worst possible scenario, and reflects “lack of faith in the validity of the democratic system.”(24). Just because one action is taken, in this case, the legalization of Euthanasia, one can not assume that another more drastic step will follow.  If voluntary euthanasia is legalized, that does not mean that non-voluntary, or involuntary active euthanasia will necessarily follow.

            A final argument of those who oppose euthanasia is the idea that those who request that their life be taken are suffering from depression, which can be treated, if they were to visit a psychologist.  They associate this same argument with those who want to commit suicide because of immense pain.  One website claims that “nearly all pain can be eliminated” or that it can be “reduced significantly if proper treatment is provided.”(Reasons for Euthanasia)  But what about those who, like Debbie, face cancer which is unresponsive to chemotherapy?  They received what was considered “proper treatment” by going through radiation procedures, but in the end caused themselves more pain by taking a poison in the hopes that it would kill the cancer before it killed them.  This same thing goes along with radiation treatments.  According to Laurie Tarkan, a New York Times reporter, “radiation may increase the long-term risk of dying from cardiovascular or lung diseases.” (Tarkan, 1).  Similarly, an article on CNN relates the story of Diane Pretty, who since 1999 has battled motor neuron disease.  “Her disease is at an advanced stage, leaving her unable to speak and having to be fed through a tube…she faces death soon from respiratory failure and pneumonia.” (UK Woman, 1).  One certainly can not eliminate her pain or reverse the effects of her disease.  Would it be wrong to allow her to die instead of taking further measures and hooking her up to a respirator when her lungs fail?  No, it is not wrong, it is certainly the most merciful option she has.

                   Although these examples given are certainly very moving, it does not refute the fact that each circumstance is different, so one solution to the “euthanasia controversy” can never be derived.  However, one can logically conclude the necessity to respect someone’s wishes when it comes to their right to die.  Because people in America are allowed life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, wouldn’t that justify someone using their liberties to choose whether or not they want to live, prolonging their suffering, hindering their pursuit of happiness?  Also, everyone deserves to have the freedom to choose which action they should take, it being a natural right of agency.  On the same thread, people should be allowed to create “living wills” so that in the event of an emergency, their wishes are known.  If someone is an adult, and of sound mind, they have the right to make their own decisions, and doctors should respect their decisions.  Similarly, if one can not make their own decision, they as a human have the right to an evaluation of the situation, and if it is determined that their illness is irreversible, or they are in a persistent vegetative state, they should be allowed to die with dignity.  In addition, if someone is aiding another who has expressed a wish to die, the assistant in this suicide should not be prosecuted for their act of mercy.  However, all of these things should not be taken lightly.  They should be well thought out and done with proper procedure so as to prevent someone from taking advantage of another person.  Involuntary Euthanasia should not be allowed on the grounds that someone has the right to choose, and their choices and wishes should be respected.  People thusly have the right to choose euthanasia by action through the administering of a lethal drug, or by omission through the removal of feeding tubes, respirators, etc. 
                 For those who cannot choose, it seems fitting that an evaluation should be made regarding their behalf.  Loved ones or relatives should be consulted in this matter, but their opinions should not necessarily be the only part of the evaluation.  If someone is in a persistent vegetative state, they should be, like Terry Schaivo, be allowed to die.  In cases of extreme suffering, someone deserves the right to end their suffering.  Who would prolong suffering, for the sake of suffering?  Dutch doctors use the model of extreme suffering to give explanation for the euthanization if infants.  One CNN article tells of Dutch doctors who, when interviewed admitted to such killing of infants, but “that the babies who had been euthanized were born with incurable conditions that were so serious ‘(we) felt that the most humane course would be to allow the child to die and even actively assist them with their death.”(Dutch, 1).  Children with little or no hope of survival should not have to suffer so that a doctor doesn’t feel guilty for relieving them.  Similarly, car crash victims, or victims of other accidents who are only kept alive through respirators and feeding tubes should be allowed to die and continue on into the next life.  If these measures had not been put into place, they would have died sooner, so why prolong an undignified life?  Why prolong a life of pain, when for thousands of years people have been mercifully allowed to move on?  Why prolong the suffering of loved ones who are forced to watch their family members endure extreme pain?  There is no reason to. 

            To conclude, I offer a solution which may seem like no solution at all, and that is that people should be allowed the right to choose.  Whether it is abortion or euthanasia, they should be allowed to choose for themselves when life starts or ends.  A person should be able to choose by what means they should die and when they should die also.  For cases of extreme suffering, someone deserves to reserve their right to die, and doctors should not be liable for the actions taken on behalf of the wishes of their patients.  Naturally, there should be a system in place which will prevent any abuse of someone’s natural right to die.  You deserve the right to an evaluation of your medical history in order to diagnose whether euthanasia should be performed.  However, like abortion, euthanasia should not be taken lightly.  In cases of teen pregnancy and “accidental” conception, abortion is the easy way out, and for people who are suffering, euthanasia certainly can be the easy way out.  The “just kill me now” idea is not acceptable.  People should be diagnosed for depression, but a plea for suicide should never be dismissed as merely a symptom of depression.  It is with these complications that Euthanasia should be legalized, and only under these terms. 

Share this post on:

 •    •    •    •    •