Callaway 1

Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide

Euthanasia is the act of painlessly killing a patient who has an incurable and painful
disease or is in a coma which they will most likely not wake up from. In most countries
physicians are not allowed to enable suicide through pills or any other method. The idea of
helping patients take their own lives has been controversial throughout the world; it is illegal in
most countries. Even though many people think that assisted suicide should never be permitted,
in cases where the damage is irreversible the patient should be given the choice. Those with such
a serious injury or illness should be allowed to make this decision because they should have the
right to die, can avoid unnecessary pain, and the reasons against it, such as the reduction in the
quality of palliative care, are not valid and have no substantial evidence.
Although many doctors see euthanasia as a crime, it should be considered as much of a
crime to make someone live who with justification does not wish to continue (Girsh).
Numerous terminally ill patients have to struggle through their last couple of months in extreme
pain or on so many pain medications that they are not even lucid. These patients are required to
choose between two incredibly terrible choices: be in a great amount of pain or have their mental
capacity at such a state that they have no quality of life; the legalization of euthanasia adds
another option that, although it could be seen as an even worse choice, at least gives the patient
control of their life. Most of those who have argued against assisted suicide have never
experienced it firsthand. They have never known what it is like to be dying slowly and painfully,
neither do they know what it is like to watch someone who they love go through this. The
legalization does not take away any choices for the patient, but rather adds another one. In the
state of Washington it was ruled that an adult who is competent, is a resident of Washington

Callaway 2
state, 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 that the patient may self-administer to end his or her life in
a humane and dignified manner" (Washington Death with Dignity Act). The protocol for assisted
suicide in Washington is that the patient, who must have a prognosis of death within the next 6
months, has to orally request to the physician, wait 15 days, orally request again to this doctor,
write this request, and wait 48 hours before receiving the medication prescribed; this system
ensures that the patient takes time to make their decision: it cannot be made in haste (Somers).
Although the legislation in Washington (the Death with Dignity Act) is open to all who
have been diagnosed to die within 6 months, this should not be the case. Another criterion should
be required: the patient needs to have irreparable damage. Many patients have a terminal illness
that caused irreversible damage, this meaning that even if a cure for their disease was found, they
could not be saved. Some argue that euthanasia should never be allowed because if a cure is
found they could be saved, but this belief is for those who do not fully understand how damaging
some illnesses are; many of the patients who seek out euthanasia have too much damage to
organs and other body parts for treatment to have any success. By adding this to the necessary
requirements to qualify for assisted suicide, the question of what if a cure was found
tomorrow? is rendered moot; this means that the patients who choose to die are taking no risk
because their immediate death is inevitable.
Those with these devastating, incurable illnesses have the right to decide if they want to
die. The law should give patients the ability to save themselves from unnecessary pain and

Callaway 3
suffering when their death is inevitable. The ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union) argues for
assisted suicide:
The right of a competent, terminally ill person to avoid excruciating pain and
embrace a timely and dignified death bears the sanction of history and is implicit
in the concept of ordered liberty. The exercise of this right is as central to personal
autonomy and bodily integrity as rights safeguarded by this Court's decisions
relating to marriage, family relationships, procreation, contraception, child rearing
and the refusal or termination of life-saving medical treatment A state's
categorical ban on physician assistance to suicide -- as applied to competent,
terminally ill patients who wish to avoid unendurable pain and hasten inevitable
death -- substantially interferes with this protected liberty interest and cannot be
sustained (Amicus Brief in Vacco v. Quill).
The right to choose to die painlessly when the only other option is to die a painful death is as
much of a right as any other right dealing with an individual. Our basic right to life should mean
not only to be able to live, but to have the opportunity to choose when we die under the
circumstances previously mentioned. It is no more cruel or murderous for a doctor to
prescribe pills that can enable his patients wishes than to forcibly send them home to die. This
decision needs to be made by competent patients who are capable of making health care
decisions for themselves; they have the right to decide if they will consent to surgery, take a
medication, or any other form of treatment so in many forms they already have the right to die.
Patients will be more likely to try every treatment available if, in the end, they have the right to
end their pain if these treatments dont work. Speaking of pills that could end his wifes life,

Callaway 4
Robbi Laytner, the husband of Brittany Maynard (a woman who exercised her right to choose
euthanasia), said that just having them in her hand gave her some sense of control of what was
happening to her. It allowed her to relax and say to us and to herself, Well, when things get
really bad, Ill take this (Oregon Womans Assisted-Suicide Decision Sparks Debate over
Death with Dignity). When patients are given the option of euthanasia it helps give them the
courage to take extreme measures to keep themselves alive, such as painful surgeries or
procedures, because they know that if it is not successful they will not have to deal with the pain
from these decisions.
The decision to take a loved one off of life support is not the doctors, but either the
patients, based on a living will, or the ones responsible for the patients care. The government
recognizes in this situation that it should not be its decision for when it is a patients time. A
patient is allowed to make a living will-- a document saying how they want to be handled
medically at the end of their life (Randolph). Many patients will choose to sign a DNR (do not
resuscitate) meaning that they do not want any extreme measures taken to keep them alive. The
government has already taken steps, such as a DNR, in realizing that it is the patients decision in
these critical medical conditions how much they want to suffer. Those who sign a DNR cannot
be put on a ventilator or life support; this means that, in some cases, a patient has signed a
document that will end their life. When things such as DNRs are allowed, it is unreasonable that
assisted suicide is not. Most of the patients who make the decision to sign a DNR have the same
mindset as those who ask for assisted suicideliving longer is not worth extreme pain and
suffering if it only prolongs the inevitable. The decision should never be made by the
government. They do not understand the patients pain or how much suffering it would save
them from. The decisions of life and death, assisted suicide, and other hard medical decisions are

Callaway 5
intensely personal and socially expensive decisions (that) should not be left to governments,
judges or legislators better attuned to highway funding(Planning for Worse than Taxes). The
same people who decide how much money should be put into things such as roads should not
have the authority to also decide that ourselves or a loved one can be forced into a painful death.
Some may say that if euthanasia is legalized then the quality of palliative care would
decrease. Palliative care is specialized medical care for people with serious illnesses. It focuses
on providing patients with relief from the symptoms and stress of a serious illness (What is
Palliative Care?). Because its purpose is to help provide the patients relief, the option of
euthanasia only increases the quality of palliative care. This option would be open to such a
small percentage of cases that the quality of care for these patients, or any of the patients in
palliative care, would not be affected. Medical decisions and protocols made by doctors are
based on the majority and, due to the diminutive amount of people that would qualify for
euthanasia, no decisions would be made specifically for this group. Many also believe that those
who are taking care of a patient with a terminal illness would try to suggest or influence the
patients choice in the direction of assisted suicide, but this is not the case. Those who administer
palliative care are specially trained doctors and nurses. This means that a patient choosing to end
their life would only decrease a doctor or nurses revenue and, in some cases, could even cause
unemployment.
Euthanasia and assisted suicide can help those with a terminal illness avoid a short life
that is filled only with pain and pills; those going through this have the right to decide if they
want to avoid this and this decision should not be the governments. Euthanasia should be
offered only to those who have irreparable damage and will die within the next 6 months so that

Callaway 6
even if a cure is later developed, it still would have been too late. A competent person has the
right to make this choice or, if they are mentally unable, physicians should refer to a living will.
The process needs to be long enough so that the patient does not have the ability to make a rash
decision and those prescribing the medication know that they are certain. Euthanasia and assisted
suicide, if used correctly, can be an incredible tool in the medical industry and a blessing in the
lives of those who are given the option. It can save patients from pointless suffering and, in some
cases, can even help them to have the bravery needed to take more drastic measures that could
save their life.

Works cited:

Callaway 7
Girsh, Faye. ""How Shall We Die?" Free Inquiry." Interview. Procon.org. N.p., 21 Jan. 2009.
Web. 7 Nov. 2015. <http://euthanasia.procon.org/view.source.php?sourceID=721>.
United States of America. Secretary of State. The Washington Death with Dignity Act. Vol. 100.
N.p.: n.p., n.d. Print. Initiative Measure.
Amicus Brief in Vacco v. Quill. 1 ACLU Amicus Brief in Vacco v. Quill 3. 10 Dec. 1996. Print.
"Planning for Worse than Taxes." Los Angeles Times 22 Mar. 2005: n. pag. Print.
Somers, Meredith. "Oregon Womans Assisted-Suicide Decision Sparks Debate Over Death
with Dignity." The Washington Times 31 Oct. 2014. Print.
Randolph, Mary. "What Is a Living Will." AllLaw.com. Web. 14 Nov. 2015.
"What Is Palliative Care?" Get Palliative Care. 11 Sept. 2012. Web. 14 Nov. 2015.