Everyone who is human will eventually die. Doctors and scientists can safely say there is no one living today who has survived since the beginning of time. Even though death is a hard reality for many people to face, friends and relatives of terminally ill people are forced to come to grips with the fact that the sick person is going to die. Assuming all modern medical treatments have been exhausted, these people often look at death as the only cure for their pain. Many would look to their physician for help in dying painlessly and with dignity if society permitted, but the majority of people have a hard time understanding the idea of euthanasia or of a doctor assisting a patient in suicide and believe that it should be illegal for a doctor to do so. Despite the initial ghastliness of the idea, physicians should be allowed to assist dying patients in their deliberate deaths without fear of prosecution or persecution from the law and the general public.
First, it is important to define the two terms "euthanasia" and "physician-assisted suicide." Taber's Cyclopedic Medical Dictionary defines euthanasia as, "1. Dying easily, quietly, and painlessly. 2. The act of willfully ending life in individuals with an incurable disease" (629). Twelve doctors in a collaborative article explain that physician-assisted suicide "differs from euthanasia in that the act of bringing on death is performed by the patient, not the physician" (Wanzer et al. 848).
The doctor's duty in terminal patient care today is hard to define due to the many variations in morals and ethics. Some people say the physician's role is to sustain life even if the patient is in severe pain or in a vegetative state. The doctor's role, however, is to ease pain and suffering even if palliative treatment results in an accelerated inevitable death. Dr. Wanzer and his colleagues determined in their article that:
It is morally correct to increase the dose of narcotics to whatever dose is needed even though the medication may contribute to the depression of respiration or blood
pressure, the dulling of consciousness, or even death, provided the primary goal of the physician is to relieve suffering. (Wanzer et al. 847) These are the men and women who deal with death every day. They know it would be better to die than to undergo the painful side effects of life-sustaining treatments. Still, many people believe physician-assisted suicide or euthanasia is not an act of humanity, but an act of murder.
What is the legal standpoint on physician-assisted suicide or euthanasia? Is a doctor who gives a suffering, terminally ill patient a lethal injection of pain killer at the patient's request a murderer? Some believe it is outright murder and that lawmakers should make it clear legally that it is. As the law stands now, doctors can be prosecuted by the law for partici- pating actively in a patient's suicide. However, many states already allow passive euthanasia, withholding of treatment or life-support systems. This is usually done from the patient's prior instructions or after consultation with the next of kin, in essence, a living will. The fact that the living will is gaining popularity is displayed by the statistic that 70 percent of daily deaths in the United States are prearranged with living wills. Since passive euthanasia through a living will is legal, the doctor usually refrains from ever starting any life sustaining treatment (Humphry 49).
A recent California proposition would make it legal for doctors actively to assist in their patients' deaths. Proposition 161, a hybrid of active and passive euthanasia, is a bill that may allow physicians actively to euthanize terminally ill patients who request to die. The October 10 edition of The New York Times states,
Proposition 161 requires two witnesses to the signing of an advanced, revocation directive indicating that a person wanted to have life ended, "with the aid of a physician in a painless, humane, and dignified manner" if terminally ill and if immediate death is requested at least twice. . . .(A7) The article also states that the proposition allows the doctor to have a psychiatric evaluation of the patient done before assisting in his or her death. This could serve as a protective measure to make sure the patient's decision has not been influenced by outside interests. Proposition 161 makes it a crime for anyone to pressure patients into death because they are a "financial, emotional, or other burden" (New York Times A7). This clear and concise bill fills in many of the grey areas, clearly showing that the fate of the patient is in his or her own hands. The doctor is merely providing a vehicle for that person to enact his or her own wishes.
It is understandably difficult to comprehend the rationale behind doctors helping patients die when they have historically been noted for saving lives. But the request of a suffering, dying patient for a painless and dignified death is more understandable. Doctors who have remained anonymous have admitted practicing assisted suicide and euthanasia for years under a shroud of secrecy. They do so for fear of legal and ethical repercussions. Society should not hold them in contempt for honoring a dying person's final request. Therefore, a law such as Proposition 161 must be adopted by each state so that dying patients can enact their basic human rights without fear that a survivor will suffer legal consequences.
"Euthanasia." Tabers Cyclopedic Medical Dictionary. 16 ed.1989. Wanzer, Sidney. et. al. "The Physicians Responsibility Toward Hopelessly Ill Patients." New England Journal of Medicine 320 (1989): 844-849.
Humphry, Derek. Interview. Playboy Aug. 1992: 49+. "Beliefs." New York Times 10 Oct. 1992: A7.