Right to Die or Right to Murder?

Mady Starke

English 111
Erskine
17 December 2015

In 1990, Dr. Kevorkian assisted Janet Adkins, a woman suffering from early-onset
Alzheimers, with her suicide; therefore, the entire country had their eyes opened to the
highly controversial and complicated topic of physician-assisted suicide ("Jack KevorkianDoctor"). Euthanasia, which is by definition, the act of killing or permitting the death of a
hopelessly sick or injured individual in a relatively painless way for reasons of mercy, is
currently illegal in 45 out of the 50 states in America ("State-by-State Guide to PhysicianAssisted Suicide - Euthanasia - ProCon.org"). Since that incident in 1990, politicians in the
United States have observed how euthanasia works in other countries that have the procedure
legalized, but it remains a highly sensitive subject, especially to the groups who feel as
though they might be targeted such as the elderly and racial minority groups. The main
question for legalizing euthanasia is: Are we legalizing someones right to die peacefully, or
are we legalizing murder?
In order to regulate the use of this terminal procedure, a universal definition of a
terminal illness would need to be made, and right now there isnt one. The definition of
terminal has different meanings to each person; Terminally ill could suggest that a patient
only has a few weeks or months to live, or it could be referencing someones lack of will to
live any longer because of depression or some other mind-altering disease. Each doctor
would be under an excessive amount of stress while attempting to decide which patients are
sick enough to receive this procedure, and there would be no way to regulate it because
doctors opinions are subject to bias just as any other humans is.
The price of medical care has skyrocketed throughout the past few decades, causing
some families to be buried underneath crippling piles of debt. Wesley J. Smith, a senior
fellow at the Discovery Institute of America, stated that drugs used in assisted suicide cost

only abut $40, but it could take up to $40,000 to properly treat a patient so that they dont
want the choice of assisted suicide. In order to contain the cost of healthcare, large
companies would likely encourage the use of physician-assisted suicide, which would not be
accepted by the common population, seeing as most people view suicide as a last resort
rather than a valid option for treating patients. Some sick and elderly patients may feel guilty
for not choosing the option of euthanasia simply because they know that they are a financial
and physical burden on their families. This could potentially cause serious discourse within
families and inside the mind of the sick individual. Counseling would need to be a lengthy
process for both the individual and their family in order to confirm that the patient wants to
be euthanized for the right reasons, rather than to save their families from the burden.
Legalizing euthanasia could end up creating a hurricane of legal issues and law suits,
because whether or not the consent to euthanize an individual was voluntarily given could be
argued in some cases. Some people are not mentally suited or capable of making that large of
a decision on their own, such as an elderly person who goes through bouts of lucidity and
then retreats back into their mind, not able to communicate or understand what is happening
in the current situation. Most cases of euthanasia are not black and white, which could
potentially harm doctors after theyve made their decision ("Arguments Against
Euthanasia"). Many programs have found loopholes in our legal system in order to give
patients the option to speed up the process of ending their life without actually ending it
directly. In hospice care, families of the sick are sent packages called comfort packages,
and these contain medication that can be given to the person who is dying in order to help
them pass more comfortably and quickly. Some families take advantage of this way to aid
their suffering kin, but others have an internal conflict that stops them. Most all religious

folks believe that only God has the right to decide who lives and for how long theyre on this
Earth, which prevents them from making the choice to help their family member end their
own suffering. Dealing with the aftermath of personally helping a family member can be lifealtering, because one might be left with the constant burning question of whether or not they
did the right thing or if there really was no other choice.
In contrast to the complications that legalizing euthanasia would bring, there are a
plethora of reasons as to why it some believe it should be made legal. The main argument is
that an individual should be able to decide when and how their life should end, as long as it
doesnt abuse any other individuals rights. Quality of life is a big part of this argument
because the ethical side of the argument for legalizing euthanasia suggests that an individual
is the only one who should be able to decide whether or not their life is worth continuing, but
that idea is rejected by religious organizations. Legalizing euthanasia would provide
individuals who are in severe pain with a way to end their own suffering, which is a right no
one should deny them. By legalizing the option, doctors would be able to regulate the
procedure and protect patients from any possible complications and would be able to prepare
the families for the loss of their loved one. For example, last year 29 year-old Brittany
Maynard who had brain cancer decided to end her life under Oregons assisted-suicide law.
Brittanys sisters response to her choosing to end her life was, as her condition worsened
and the tumor took over control, it became increasingly more difficult for her to function.
One comfort is that she was able to make the choice to end her suffering before she was
unable to function at all. Thats what SHE wanted. These are the kinds of situations in
which euthanasia could help families handle a bad situation in the best way they could
("Brittany Maynard, The 29-Year-Old With Brain Cancer, Has Committed Suicide").

Humans also put their suffering animals out of their misery often by putting them down, so
it would make sense to provide humans who can speak their consent with this same courtesy.
Also, it can be argued that euthanasia is already being practiced under a different
name in the United States, so it wouldnt be far-fetched to just call it like it is. A legal
document that states that a person doesnt want to be resuscitated (a DNR form) could be
considered a form of euthanasia because it prevents someone from getting treatment that
could have possibly saved their life, so it is often called passive euthanasia. Palliative
sedation, which is commonly used on burn victims to put them to sleep, could also be
considered a type of active euthanasia because some sedatives carry the risk of speeding up
death ("Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide - Arguments").
Overall, there would be just as many advantages to legalizing euthanasia as there
would be potential consequences. This legalization could instill fear into the hearts of
patients and would require for individuals to trust their doctors to a whole new extent.
Doctors would need to be educated further in order to understand what it really means to end
a life rather than simply ending all treatment that was prolonging the life. Physician-assissted
suicide is a moral gray-area that may never be fully agreed upon or accepted by all members
of society.