Living with the Freedom to Die

Living With the Freedom to Die

PHI 103: Informal Logic

Prof. Mosser

Terminally ill people suffer from a medical condition which will inevitably lead to their death, however allowing the freedom to choose the right to die is commonly deemed morally and ethically wrong. This choice is often considered a criminal issue and is rarely considered legal with a few exceptions. Euthanasia, as defined by the Merriam Webster dictionary, is Greek in origin and is the act or practice of killing or permitting the death of hopelessly sick or injured individuals in a relatively painless way for reasons of mercy. The selection of euthanasia should be a legal right for people whose medical condition is terminal, and whose pain and suffering overshadow the benefit of trying to extend their life.

There are two main forms of euthanasia with sub-categories that have distinct differences that need to be understood. According to Audrey K. Gordon (1997), a researcher who reviewed Euthanasia Examined, these forms include active and passive euthanasia. The first form, passive euthanasia, is generally associated with a doctor's decision to stop treatment or fail to intervene when there is without a doubt that death will occur. Turning off life-support machines or withdrawing other treatment normally demonstrates passive euthanasia. This form does not typically face as many opponents as does active euthanasia. Active euthanasia is defined in Gordon's review as "compassion-motivated, deliberate, rapid and painless termination of the life of someone afflicted with an incurable and progressive disease" (p. 2). Opponents of euthanasia would argue that the direct action intended to terminate another life even at the patient's request be termed murder and not active euthanasia.

Euthanasia has three sub-categories that can go along with either the passive or active definition. These include voluntary, involuntary, and non-voluntary. The first sub-category is voluntary. This simply means that the patient freely and competently made the choice. The second sub-category is involuntary. Involuntary means the choice was made without the patient's approval, although the patient was capable of making the decision. Non-voluntary refers to the choice being made for an incompetent patient who is not believed to be capable of making the choice for himself. These three sub-categories play a major factor in how euthanasia is viewed and determined legally.

There are a growing number of proponents to the Euthanasia issue that bring up several reasons why Euthanasia is right and justified. One reason is that people should have the freedom to choose whether they live or die. This should be a basic right or freedom for everyone living in a free society.

Another reason proponents argue is that many terminally ill patients suffer from symptoms that cannot be controlled well. This can often times be very difficult to live with and tolerate. Despite this reality, pain is not the only reason a person chooses not to live. Being able to make this important choice during such a difficult time gives the patient a sense of power in a time they feel nothing within their life is under their control. It also adds a sense of dignity for the patient by allowing them to choose how to spend their last moments of life.

Those in favor of euthanasia also bring up the comparison of passive euthanasia to active euthanasia. As described earlier, passive euthanasia is when a doctor takes a patient off life support or treatment is withheld. Active euthanasia is when the doctor directly gets involved in the death of a patient such as by administering a lethal injection. Although there seems to be a difference between the two; proponents believe they both have the same ethical and moral results. In other words, both choices face the same moral problem of whether to allow the death of a person who is suffering to take place.

Another gray area is between the distinction of double effect and terminal sedation in comparison to doctor-assisted suicide. The definition of doctor-assisted suicide must first be understood in order to better understand the similarities between the terms. "Doctor assisted suicide is usually taken to mean the doctor provides the knowhow and the means to commit suicide but the patient is the one who actually takes the pills or pulls the trigger, with or without the doctor's presence" (Anonymous, 1997, p. 22). In double effect, a doctor can also prescribe patients large doses of drugs, which present a very high risk of death for the patient. The only difference with double effect is that the prescription has to be made with the intention of relieving pain. It appears, however, that the true intention is obvious. It should not be legally justified in one case and legally wrong in another because the prescription fails to state the real purpose of the drug. If it is ethically, morally, and legally right for double effect to be practiced, then the same should be true for doctor-assisted suicide and voluntary euthanasia. It is important to keep in mind, however, that although doctor-assisted suicide and euthanasia produce the same end result, they are not exactly the same in procedure. Already mentioned, doctor-assisted suicide only involves the patient in the actual suicide act such as taking pills. In contrast, voluntary euthanasia directly involves the doctor taking part in the suicide act at the patient's request.

Terminal sedation is another procedure used that must be closely monitored so as not to overstep the boundary into voluntary euthanasia or doctor-assisted suicide. In an article titled Last Rights, this procedure is described as, "the patient voluntarily chooses to be sedated into a coma and to have their life support withdrawn; the patient is allowed to starve to death, a process that may take some days" (Anonymous, 1997, p. 22). The similarities of terminal sedation to voluntary euthanasia and doctor-assisted suicide are remarkable. As in the procedure double effect, this practice is within the legal rights of the law just as long as it is done with the motive of pain relief. If this is the only distinction that prevents legal ramifications as presented with voluntary euthanasia, then it is possible that euthanasia has been practiced all this time despite it being illegal.

If the previous assumption is true, it only makes sense that the practice of euthanasia should be done openly and not behind closed doors, or by trying to disguise it by saying that it was done with the intention of pain relief. If it were brought out in the open it would allow for proper

...