FREE ESSAY ON ASSISTED SUICIDE

ASSISTED SUICIDE

Assisted Suicide: Ethical or Immoral?
Assisted Suicide, also known as mercy killing, occurs when a physician provides the means
(drugs or other agents) by which a person can take his or her own life. This assistance
is one of the most debated issues today in society followed by abortion. Physicians are
frequently faced with the question of whether or not assisted suicide is ethical or
immoral. Although assisted suicide is currently illegal in almost all states in America,
it is still often committed. Is assisted suicide ethical? Studies have found that the
majority of Americans support assisted suicide. One must weigh both sides of the argument
before they can decide. 
On July 26, 1997, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously upheld decisions in New York and
Washington State that criminalized assisted suicide. These decisions overturned rulings
in the 2nd and 9th Circuit Courts of Appeal, which struck down state statutes banning
physician-assisted suicide. Those courts had found that the statutes, which prohibited
doctors from prescribing lethal medication to competent, terminally ill adults, violated
the 14th Amendment. In striking the appellate decisions, the U.S. Supreme Court found
that there was no constitutional right to die, but left it to individual states to enact
legislation permitting or prohibiting physician-assisted suicide. As of April 1999,
physician-assisted suicide is illegal in the majority of states. Over thirty states have
enacted statutes prohibiting assisted suicide, and of those that do not have statutes, a
number of them arguably prohibit it through common law.
Currently, Oregon is the only state that has legalized assisted suicide. The Oregon
statute, which came into effect in October 1997, states that a doctor may prescribe, but
not administer, a lethal dose of medication to a patient who has less than six months to
live. It is required that two separate doctors must agree that the patient is mentally
competent and that the decision was voluntary. As of April 1999, 23 patients were given
drugs legally under the statute, and 15 of them used the drugs to commit suicide. 
What makes assisted suicide legal in Oregon? Is it fair that individuals in Oregon are
allowed to end their suffering painlessly? Unfortunately, numerous people throughout
America have terminal illnesses that cause tremendous personal suffering. These people do
not want to continue living, they are aware that their health will not improve and the
pain will not come to an end so in turn they want to end their lives peacefully and
painlessly. These people feel as if they have no control over their pain and disease and
they wish to gain control over their lives by ending them.
One notorious individual who took the law into his own hands and is known for his
frequent involvement in assisted suicide is the former Dr. Jack Kevorkian (he has lost
his right to practice). Kevorkian also known as "Dr. Death" by many has been linked to
over 120-assisted suicide cases, many of which occurred by use of a death machine he
invented in his infamous white van. His patients' personal profiles vary tremendously,
however all the patients have one thing in common, a terminal illness and unbearable pain
that had no hope of getting better. His patients' age ranged from 21 to 89 years old,
each of them having a diverse illness varying from AIDS to Quadriplegia.
These people sought Kevorkian out as if he was a savior. They needed assistance for their
suffering and could not find it anywhere else. Kevorkian sympathized with them and agreed
to aid them in their planned deaths. He told reporters that his mission in life was to
stop the suffering that no one else would. Before actually going through with the process
of suicide Kevorkian made sure that the people were fully aware of the consequences and
that they made their decision after knowing all the details and in a correct mental
state. He tape-recorded various patients giving a testimony of their wishes. They begged
the doctor to help them die.
Jack Lessenberry, in his 1994 article, Death Becomes Him for the magazine Vanity Fair
writes on the popular belief that no jury will ever convict Jack Kevorkian. Polls had
consistently showed Kevorkian with strong support in Michigan, generally around 60
percent. And his fame was nationwide: roughly 94 percent of Americans knew who he was;
only the president and First Lady have higher name recognition. You can't talk against
him to most people, especially if they've had someone die in horrible agony, says State
Senator John Kelly, a maverick liberal on most issues.
In fact, Kevorkian was soon stopped. On April 13, 1999 he was convicted of second-degree
murder and delivery of a controlled substance in the death of Thomas Youk, who suffered
from Lou Gehrig's disease. A Michigan judge sentenced Kevorkian to 10-25 years in prison.
He would be eligible for parole in six years. Kevorkian plans to appeal.
Not everyone agrees with Kevorkian's "mission". Some people denounced Kevorkian's actions
because they dislike his manner and attitude about assisted suicide. Since the doctor had
gotten away with the majority of his actions he in turn let the fame get to his head and
became some sort of an uncontrollable monster. Others, especially members of religious
groups strongly opposed "Dr. Death" mostly because he took peoples lives into his own
hands. He took on a role similar to that of God, no one should have the final say on
whether or not someone should stay alive—God should be in charge of a person's
life. These people often also are strong Pro-Choice advocates. They use similar reasons
for the rejection of assisted suicide. Many medical arguments have also risen on why
assisted suicide should not be committed, such things like the possibility of recovery or
the discovery of a new medical cure.
Many research groups have performed studies on the populations' acceptance and attitudes
pertaining to assisted suicide. In almost all of the studies the majority of people
responded for the right to end one's suffering by either euthanasia or assisted suicide.
In one study done in Michigan, random groups of physicians and members of the general
public were mailed questionnaires asking them to choose between the legalization of
physician-assisted suicide or an explicit ban. The end results were 56 percent of
physicians and 66 percent of the public supported legalization, 37 percent of physicians
and 26 percent of the public preferred a ban, and 8 percent of each group was uncertain.

No person should have to suffer and live when there is no hope of recovery. The opinion
on assisted suicide lies solely in the individual. People who are affected by the illness
consider it their personal right to live or die, those loved ones around them also agree
because they do not wish to see the person suffer. People on the outside looking in do
not understand the situation entirely because they are not faced with it on a personal
level. Because of this they should not be in charge of passing laws and restrictions on
what a suffering person can or cannot do with their life.
Several sympathetic articles have been written to guide physicians who receive requests
for assistance in dying, and all of these address the major medical, psychosocial, and
spiritual issues facing dying patients who wish to end their own lives. Even though these
works significantly help with the physician's battle on how to act they leave large gaps
in many areas. Since each person's situation is unique it is difficult to produce
guidelines that can be followed universally.
The ethical framework for discussions about assisted dying begins with informed consent.
Physicians must discuss the risks, benefits, and likely outcomes of assisted suicide
before they agree to the action. They must also discuss alternatives to suicide,
including the possibilities of sedative care. This model assumes rational decision-making
and also assumes that when patients raise the possibility of assisted dying, they are in
fact, asking for a hastened death rather than using the request to manipulate their
situation. Furthermore, it assumes that the patient desires and is capable of rational
decision making at this emotionally difficult time. In some cases, however, none of these
assumptions may be true.
Recently, terminal sedation and voluntarily stopping eating and drinking have been
proposed as legally acceptable alternatives to physician-assisted suicide for persons
whose suffering cannot be addressed by standard pain management and cessation of life
support. When a patient expresses the wish to die, exploration of the adequacy of
palliative care should begin, including assessment of pain management, depression,
anxiety, family burnout, and spiritual and existential issues. For patients who are
genuinely ready to die, for whom suffering is intolerable despite comprehensive
palliative efforts, an exploration of methods for easing death can begin. The methods
will be determined by the patient's clinical situation; the values of the patient,
family, and physician; and the status of current law. Many practices have been accepted
as ways to hasten death. Four options can be practiced openly, with good documentation
and consultations are as follows: standard pain management, forgoing life sustaining
therapy, voluntarily stopping eating and drinking and terminal sedation. Other options
such as physician assisted suicide and voluntary active euthanasia must be carried out
covertly, except in Oregon. Clinicians faced with these difficult decisions should be
aware of all of these options, including their indications, risks, benefits, and likely
outcomes, and how to discuss them with patients and families. 
Doctors that are asked to aid in the suicide of their patients are faced with tremendous
pressure and stress. It is difficult to turn someone down when they are begging for mercy
and on the other hand it is difficult to go against the law and commit a crime with the
risk of the loss of license or even imprisonment. The only sure way that people will stop
suffering and be allowed to die peacefully because of their own decision is if assisted
suicide becomes legal in the United States. 
Bibliography
The New England Journal of Medicine -- February 1, 1996 -- Vol. 334, No. 5 
Attitudes of Michigan Physicians and the Public toward Legalizing Physician-Assisted
Suicide and Voluntary Euthanasia
By Jerald G. Bachman, Kirsten H. Alcser, David J. Doukas, Richard L. Lichtenstein, Amy D.
Corning, Howard Brody
Annals of Internal Medicine--21 March 2000 Volume 132 Number 6
Palliative Treatments of Last Resort: Choosing the Least Harmful Alternative
Timothy E. Quill, MD; Barbara Coombs Lee, FNP, JD; Sally Nunn, RN, for the University of
Pennsylvania Center for Bioethics Assisted Suicide Consensus Panel