A Social Problem: Euthanasia

Although many feel euthanasia is an unethical practice, there are many (even within the medical field)
who believe that euthanasia is far more ethical to those who have suffered terribly at the hands of
debilitating and terminal illnesses.

B.

Views of euthanasia in the past.

II.

Recent or current events related to the issue

A.

Euthanasia is practiced in Oregon.

B.

Euthanasia is practiced in the Netherlands.

A.

Would the terminally ill be the only users of euthanasia?

B.

Is Amsterdam an example of bad instead of good?

IV.

Pro-euthanasia (the one I support) Are the laws redundant?

A.

Fourteenth amendment to the United States Constitution redundancy

Euthanasia, meaning good death, (Humphury) is one of the most acute and uncomfortable
contemporary problems in our society. The idea of euthanasia has been around since the beginning of
man. In 399 BC. Socrates, ancient philosopher of Greece chose to kill himself instead of being exiled. The
debate concerns one question: is euthanasia ethical? The case rests on one main fundamental moral
principle: mercy. Terminally ill patients often request that doctors put them out of their misery.
However, because of medicine's new technological capacities to extend life, the problem has become
much more controversial. Like any other issue, there are opposing viewpoints regarding the legalization
of euthanasia. Although many feel euthanasia is an unethical practice, there are many (even within the
medical field) who believe that euthanasia is far more ethical to those who have suffered terribly at the
hands of debilitating and terminal illnesses.

A long time ago, culture was universal and permanent. There was one set of beliefs, ideals, and
norms. These were the standard for all human beings in all places and all times. We, however, live in the
modern world. Our ethics are not an inheritance of the past, completed and ready for universal
application. We are in the situation of having to form our own beliefs and meanings of life. To be able to
do this we must closely examine the facts and the opinions of experts

In 1996, residents of Oregon passed a bill entitled the Death with Dignity Act. What this bill
permits is the intentional killing of a human being to end suffering from a terminal illness or incurably
debilitating condition, with their direct consent. (The Oregon Death with Dignity Act) Since then, this
euthanasia has taken the lives of nearly 100 people. With Oregon setting an example, the rest of the
country is waiting to see whether or not the euthanasia trend will continue to spread into other parts of
the country. Today, In the United States of America, euthanasia is illegal in every state with the
exception of Oregon, and even there it is a very long and hard struggle .

The US perspective on euthanasia doesnt differ much from the rest of the world, with the small
(yet very prominent) exception of Holland. Holland (or more properly, the Netherlands) is the only
country in the world where euthanasia is openly practiced. It is not allowed by statute, but the law
accepts a standard defense from doctors that have adhered to official guidelines, so its technically
tolerated. (Belz) While the Netherlands continues to approve of euthanasia, other countries are doing
what they can to research and rethink their legal guidelines regarding the issue. Euthanasia has been
discussed in Europe over the last couple decades and has now received new attention, since the
legalization in the Netherlands.

If euthanasia were to be legalized, where would it end? Would the terminally ill be the only
people using this method? The world looks to the Netherlands as the only working model for assisted
death. It is a nation known for its open approach to abortion, prostitution and drug use. In fact, cafs
in the Netherlands are licensed to sell hash, and marijuana - 5 grams for $25. Hookers stand on the
streets and know that they are safe from the police, and just about anything goes when it comes to
advertising. This countrys right to die policy is what many activists look towards as an example of a
working system, but they fail to take into account the other decisions (that are questionable at the very
least) which have been devised by the same system. People who are against euthanasia, place the
emphasis on killing. They believe that we are merely stewards of our lives; it is for God to decide when
our lives are to end. Further, suffering is an inevitable part of life; our task is to understand and grow
from suffering, not evade it (Mabie).

People who are for euthanasia believe that legislation against it "violates the fundamental
concepts of liberty, freedom of choice, and self-determination They base these beliefs on the text of
the fourteenth amendment to the United States Constitution. (United States Constitution Fourteenth

Amendment) The voluntary choice between life and death is, to them, a basic human right which the
government has no right to legislate. They often compare this choice of euthanasia to the right to
abortion. If abortion is a perfectly legal practice among doctors, and it involves a person making a
choice to take a human life, shouldnt euthanasia too be made legal? The illegality of euthanasia in the
United States is a redundancy people have been accepting for years.

Bibliography:
Belz, Mindy Dutch treat World Magazine. (1998) 10/25/2001

Humphury, Derek. Glossery of Terms Concerning end of life Issues Euthanasia

Guidance Organization Feb. 2001

Research and

Mabie, Margot C.J. Bioethics and the New Medical Technology. New York: Atheneum, 1992.

United States of America, The Oregon Death With Dignity Act : Washington: GPO,
11/13/2001.

1996.

United States Government, Constitution Fourteenth Amendment Date of access

10/22/2001

Source Page

Humphury
Humphury

Euthanasia: Help with a good death. (Legally vague but useful as a broad, descriptive term.)

Mabie
Mabie
we are merely stewards of our lives; it is for God to decide when our lives are to end. Further, suffering
is an inevitable part of life; our task is to understand and grow from suffering, not evade it

The Oregon Death with Dignity Act

The Oregon Death with Dignity Act
2.01 Who may initiate a written request for medication
An adult who is capable, is a resident of Oregon, and has been determined by the attending physician
and consulting physician to be suffering from a terminal disease, and who has voluntarily expressed his
or her wish to die, may make a written request for medication for the purpose of ending his or her life in
a humane and dignified manner in accordance with this Act.

United States Constitution Fourteenth Amendment

United States Constitution Fourteenth Amendment
Amendment XIV
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,
are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any
law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state
deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person
within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective
numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed. But when
the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United
States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the
legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years of age,
and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other
crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such
male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such state.
Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice
President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having
previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member
of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of
the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or

comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such
disability.
Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts
incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall
not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any state shall assume or pay any debt or
obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss
or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this
article.