A variety of arguments have been made in support of the legalization of assisted suicide. While different arguments may resonate more deeply with some people than with others, all of the points discussed here are valid parts of the intense debate that exists surrounding the topic of euthanasia.
One of the most well known arguments presented by advocates of assisted suicide is the right to die. The United States government grants its citizens most fundamental rights as an inherent part of liberty. In fact, the Ninth Amendment to the United States Constitution grants all fundamental rights not already granted in other parts of the Constitution. It is clear, then, why there is such a strong case for Americans to possess the right to die.
According to RighttoDie.uslegal.com, the right to die is defined as, “various issues related to the decision of whether an individual should be allowed to die, when s/he could continue to live with the aid of life support, or in a diminished or enfeebled capacity.” In essence, it means that a person should legally be allowed to commit suicide before dying a natural death or even refuse to receive care that would extend their life.
The right to die is one of the most prevalent arguments for the legalization of euthanasia.
There is, however, contradictory regulation that seems to exclude the right to die from the ninth amendment, at least from a medical professional’s perspective. The Hippocratic Oath, which has been used by physicians as a code of ethics for more than two thousand years, is generally taken by all physicians. Part of the oath reads: “I will follow that method of treatment, which, according to my ability and judgment, I consider for the benefit of my patients, and abstain from whatever is deleterious and mischievous. I will give no deadly medicine to anyone if asked, nor suggest any such counsel.”
Some argue, however, that the Hippocratic Oath is outdated and is in large no longer appropriate in a medical world that has witnessed tremendous technological and political change. Still others, including Dr. Philip Nitschke, assert that, just as other parts of the oath have been adapted for modern to meet standards, the phrase “do no harm” is in dire need of reevaluation. He questions:
“Does not doing harm mean that we should prolong a life that the patient sees as a painful burden? Surely, the ‘harm’ in this instance is done when we prolong the life, and ‘doing no harm’ means that we should help the patient die.”
Dr. Nitschke’s logic here is sound, yet disputable (we’ll get to that next week). Ultimately, advocates argue that the a literal interpretation of the oath does not aptly represent the principles applied to legal controversies today, and that if we were to abide by such a literal interpretation, practices such as abortion and any type of surgery at all would also be prohibited.
Scholars widely believe that the ancient Greek physican Hippocrates or one of his students wrote the oath
Pallative care is a widely used term in the euthanasia debate. BBC defines palliative care as, “physical, emotional and spiritual care for a dying person when cure is not possible.” The question is whether it is possible that achieve such quality in palliative care is enough to prevent a person from feeling any need to contemplate euthanasia. Since, in all likelihood, not all symptoms can be mollified, the question of whether of not legalizing euthanasia would undermine the quality of palliative care that hospice patients receive.
Advocates for the legalization of assisted suicide contend that euthanasia in no way precludes doctors from providing the best palliative care to suffering patients. In fact, if anything, it enables them demonstrate respect for the patient’s autonomy. Administering euthanasia is not, they say, an easier option for caregivers than providing palliative care, as some critics suggest. As Dr. Evert van Leeuwen puts it, “There is no ‘either-or’ with respect to these options. Every appropriate palliative option available must be discussed with the patient and, if reasonable, tried before a request for assisted death can be accepted.”
Palliative care is an important consideration in the debate surrounding euthanasia.
In many cases, arguments against assisted suicide reference euthanasia as a slippery slope to murder or make an analogy between murder and euthanasia. Murder, however, infringes on a person’s rights by taking away the essential element of choice. No such infringement exists when it is the person who chooses death. In the midst of heated arguments, some have even ventured to say that those who argue to preserve life are removed from the decision, as they are not experiencing the consequences of the patient’s illness first hand. Besides, a 2005 study conducted in the Netherlands suggests that only 0.4% of euthanasia was administered without consent from the patient.
For proponents of assisted suicide, the ultimate assessment of the debate is that, as autonomous beings, people deserve the right to determine their own death in the face of irrepressible pain and suffering. Death is one of the most personal events in life. As highly acclaimed author and right-to-die activist Jack Kevorkian put it, “death is not a crime.” In many states, however, this statement is being put to the test.
Renowned pathologist Jack Kevorkian
One of the interesting aspects of this argument is the debate about the legality of suicide. If assisted suicide is not legal, I feel that people who want to end their suffering and commit suicide will still do so, just in other manners. Therefore, I think either way, the patient is going to do what they want, and accomplish the task they set out to do. If they are told that they cannot end their life medically, I believe that some will then in turn shoot themselves, hang themselves, or even poison themselves in order to accomplish the same task. Therefore, the argument gets fishy when discussing the legality of suicide.
The addition of palliative care to the euthanasia debate certainly adds and interesting twist. Ideally, perfect palliative care would prevent a patient from even considering euthanasia because they would not be in pain and would be peacefully preparing emotionally for death. However, with the malicious nature of most terminal illnesses, this is often not the case. If one argues that people truly have the right to die as they wish, then the option of palliative care must be explored before assisted suicide can even be considered. Under the Hippocratic Oath, palliative care is definitely the better option as it does not attempt to prolong life but still upholds the underlying respect for life.