I have written a two-part paper concerning euthanasia and its ethicality. It is intended to to be fair, balanced, and unbiased. Please feel free to comment your opinions on this highly controversial topic. Part II will come in a couple days. Here is Part I:
In the case of physician-assisted suicide, and Oregon’s physician-assisted suicide law in particular, many arguments come to mind - both pro and con - and all have valid, thought-provoking, and emotional elements. From dying patients, family members of the patients, nursing staff and physicians, even to lawmakers and judiciary members, many people have equal yet extremely opposing views toward this topic. Ethical theories prove, as well as several ethical principles vacillate to demonstrate both sides’ opinions. Physician-assisted suicide, although legal in the state of Oregon, is a highly controversial topic which has many sprouted many ethical concerns, including many from former U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft as well as the current Bush Administration. I will examine some of these arguments, both for and against, in the hope to shed some light on either side of this debate.
In both 1994 and 1997, the people of Oregon voted to approve the Death With dignity Act, which gives terminally ill patients the right to have a physician assist in the termination of their own life by using a dose of lethal medication. These patients must successfully qualify for this to occur; specifically, they must have more than two physicians opinions and all concur their life expectancy is six months or less to live.
Since the late 1990’s, then U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft unsuccessfully attempted to overturn the law, and in January 2006, the U.S. Supreme Court voted 6-3 against the current George W. Bush Administration’s argument that a federal drug law overrode the Oregon law.
There are several reasons to advocate Oregon’s physician-assisted suicide law. Ultimately, just as the decision lies within the pregnant mother contemplating a legal abortion, the same can be said for a terminally ill patient deciding his or her own fate when contemplating physician-assisted suicide. It is their body and, right or wrong, they should have autonomy over what happens. It is a legal procedure now, and should the patient decide to allow their physician to assist in termination of their life, they have every right to do so under Oregon law.
Nonmaleficence can play a significant factor as well. This is the “do no harm” principle, and proponents of the Oregon law can argue that to subject terminally ill patients to treatment that will do nothing except aid in their prolonged suffering is harmful and unethical. Those in favor of the Oregon law could also argue that beneficence is key to ending their suffering as well. To do unto others as you would have done unto you is a major ethical principle. Countless people say, “If it were me, I’ wouldn’t want to suffer. Just pull the plug.” Whether it is voluntary or involuntary, it is still euthanasia.
It takes extraordinary courage to request (as with patients) or perform (as with physicians) physician-assisted suicide. It is a very controversial topic with significant opposition to it, so to go forward, not only dealing with their issues of mortality but fighting adversity from their opponents is very courageous.
Pro-euthanasia falls under the ethical theory of Teleology, or “the ends justify the means” theory. Proponents will argue that the decision to perform physician-assisted suicide to end a willing patient’s suffering supersedes the fact that many consider it the incorrect and unethical course of action. The physician’s priority is taking care of the patient according to their wishes and under the law, and using the Death With Dignity Act to end their suffering allows the physician to maintain and uphold that priority.
