Smith 1

Savannah Smith
4 April 2016
Mr. Padgett
English 102

To Heal or Kill
Medicine is an area of continuous progress and advancement. New discoveries are made,
more advanced technology is produced, and more treatment options are available today than ever
before. While most of these advancements are for the good of the medical field, some of them
have created ongoing issues and debates. One such issue is that of euthanasia and physician
assisted suicide. This topic has been debated for over a decade, and it continues to be highly
controversial within and outside of the field of medicine. The United States has long considered
legalizing euthanasia throughout the country, but as of today, only five states have taken this
action. This leads to the question of whether or not euthanasia and physician assisted suicide
should be legal everywhere in the United States. Close examination of the Hippocratic Oath, the
slippery slope argument, the lack of clarity in regards to informed consent, reports of abuse of
practice, and the opposing views made it possible to form an argument against euthanasia. After
extensive research a conclusion has been made that the aim of medicine is to treat, heal, and
sustain life; therefore, euthanasia and physician assisted suicide are in opposition to this goal and
should not be practiced in the United States.
In order to begin to understand euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide, there must be
an unquestionable definition of each term. In the article Physician-Assisted Suicide and
Euthanasia: Can You Even Imagine Teaching Medical Students How to End Their Patients

Smith 2
Lives?, Dr. J. Donald Boudreau defines euthanasia as, Physcian inflicted death, and he goes
on to say, I am asking the reader to consider a situation in which the physician is prepared to
administer a lethal injection to a legally and factually competent patient who has given informed
consent to the act (79). That being said, euthanasia is performed with the clear intention to end
the life of the patient through some direct action by the attending physician. This gives a clear
explanation as to what constitutes euthanasia, and this is the context in which the word will be
used. Physician-assisted suicide is slightly different from euthanasia. In this instance, the
physician does not personally inflict death, rather he provides the patient with the means to carry
out the procedure for himself which is usually constitutes a prescription for a lethal substance or
dose of medication. Even though euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide can be and are often
addressed simultaneously, it is important to be aware of those main differences because while
they are similar, they are not the same. The bottom line for each practice is that the end result is
the intentional and irreversible death of a human being; they just take different paths to reach that
destination. Once the patient has died, there is no way to reverse the action, which is why there is
no logical reason for the action to occur in the first place. It is not something that can be fixed,
so the risk should not be taken at all.
The art of healing has been recorded as a part of every civilization known to man and,
the purpose of medicinal practice has always been to heal the sick and sustain life. Hippocrates,
who is considered the father of medicine, wrote an oath concerning the ethics of medical
practice, and most new physicians still swear to that oath before beginning their careers. In the
Hippocratic Oath, there is a line that states, I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody who
asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect (Tyson). That specific part of the oath
explicitly prohibits the performance of both euthanasia and physician assisted suicide due to the

Smith 3
unethical grounds of each practice. Although the oath can not prove euthanasia to be wrong, it
can prove itself to have great value and significance to the medical field considering it is over
two-thousand years old and is still being observed and sworn to today.
Unfortunately, most oaths, including the Hippocratic Oath, carry more moral weight than
legal obligation. Dr. Eric H. Loewy wrote an article about some of the most common oaths taken
by physicians, and in the article he states:
An oath is a public declaration by which someone promises to adhere to certain
ways of behaving as well as to ethical standards and/or activities. Oaths are
generally not legally binding, but exist alongside legislative restrictions. In
essence, they are a declaration of intention, a public promise of fidelity sworn no
longer in the name of the Gods in which many of us no longer believe but on
our honor (which, one would hope, is precious to us). (Loewy).
That being said, oaths provide restrictions for doctors and moral expectations for the way
they carry out their duties, but they do not legally bind the physician. Therefore, the doctor is
able to break his oath, whether intentionally or not, without any real consequences. The lack of
consequences could be a reason for euthanasia being practiced despite the obvious objection to it
by the Hippocratic Oath. If any oath taken by a physician were to be made legally binding, the
doctors may feel a stronger urge to abide by their spoken promise and adhere to the standards of
the oath.
If one does any research on the topic of euthanasia, he will most likely come across some
information on the slippery slope argument. The slippery slope argument is commonly referred
to by those who take a stand against euthanasia and physician assisted suicide. The basis of the
argument can be explained as the following: if voluntary euthanasia is made legal and put into

Smith 4
practice, then the restrictions and monitoring will become less and less strict, eventually leading
to the evolution of voluntary euthanasia into involuntary euthanasia, and patients will be put to
death at the caretakers discretion rather than the patients consent. This argument may seem
extreme and far-fetched, but the reality is, cases of involuntary euthanasia are already occurring
in place where euthanasia has been legalized. An article called A Case Against Dutch
Euthanasia was written by Dr. Richard Fenigsen, and in his article, the doctor reveals some
shocking information regarding cases of exposed involuntary euthanasia. For example, Dr.
Fenigsen states, There is now ample evidence that voluntary euthanasia is accompanied by the
practice of crypthanasia (active euthanasia on sick people without their knowledge). Gunning
was the first to report attempts to kill off elderly patients instead of admitting them to the
hospital (25). Fenigsen provides several other examples, and he references the De Terp senior
citizens home, where secret killings were being carried out by the attending physicians, as well
as the discovery of serial killings carried out by nurses at the Free University Hospital in
Amsterdam (Fenigsen 25). Despite the fact that these events occurred many years ago, they still
present solid and unarguable evidence that legalization of voluntary euthanasia has the
possibility to lead to involuntary euthanasia, therefore creating a slippery slope with horrible
outcomes.
The slippery slope argument is more of a logical fallacy than a prevalent issue, and it
really comes down to people who abuse their power and responsibilities, but it sets the stage for
a real problem concerning the legalization of euthanasia. The slippery slope argument points out
the issues regarding true, informed consent given by the patient. There is often a blurred line
when it comes to consent for any matter, but it becomes a more serious issue when it means the
difference between life and death. There is no way to be absolutely certain of a patients

Smith 5
comprehension of the results of euthanasia. It is also impossible to know if the patient would
have changed their mind in the future, or if the patients condition would have improved with
time. Difficult personal circumstances and emotions often cloud judgment and make it more
likely for someone to make a rash and quick decision. It is the view of those in opposition to
euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide that leaving these options out from the start is the
safest approach with the least possible complications or negative effects.
Falling down a slippery slope and the question of true consent are not the only dangers
that must be considered when addressing the euthanasia and physician assisted suicide
controversy. Abuse of the practice itself and of the laws that provide a framework of procedure is
a very relevant issue with a high rate of occurrence. In places such as the Netherlands where
euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide are legal and in practice, there are many rules,
regulations, and laws in place to help monitor and restrict the cases. However, abuse of these
regulations is common, and the punishments for breaking the laws are very slight. Most places
that have legalized euthanasia require that the patient must have unbearable suffering, request
euthanasia multiple times both in writing as well as verbally, have their case reviewed by a
committee, and then all cases of euthanasia must be reported (Ahmed 309). Iftikhar Ahmed
wrote an article addressing the abuses of practice that occur, and in the article he states, It is
estimated that every year physicians actively terminate life of 550 patients without explicit
request, and more than twice that number are deeply sedated, to hasten their death, for nonalleviation of pain/suffering reasons (309). Ahmed continues to expand on this evidence by
saying, Despite two decades of legalization, still 20% of euthanasia and PAS cases are not
reported because either the physician doesnt regard them as euthanasia or to evade scrutiny for
not following guidelines (309). In the Netherlands, not only are patients being put to death for

Smith 6
non-suffering reasons, but their cases are also not being reported, as required by law. This shows
just how relevant the issue of abuse of practice is in places where euthanasia is legal and furthers
the argument that these practices can not be properly controlled, and therefore should be illegal.
It is important to understand both sides of any argument in order to be prepared to defend
the supported view. In the case of euthanasia, there are many people who believe it is a merciful
alternative to patient suffering. They also stress the phrase death with dignity when making
their argument for euthanasia and physician assisted suicide. The phrase death with dignity
implies that any person who is known to have a terminal disease or a condition that makes life
unlivable has the right to die in a way in which they feel is respectable and dignified, rather
than allowing the natural course of things to be carried out. In addition to these points,
proponents of euthanasia have their own responses to the arguments of the slipper slope and
abuse of practice. One such response is given in the article A legal right to die: responding to
the slippery slope and abuse arguments which states, If the likelihood for abuse were thought
to be grounds for withholding a right, then much more than euthanasia would have to be banned.
Driving, for example, would have to be prohibited on the grounds that this right is abused and
that none of the safeguards we have against such abuse are completely effective (Benatar 206).
While the author provides a good analogy for the situation, his argument is lacking substance and
sufficient logic. His point that there are many more abused rights besides euthanasia is true, but
very few of them have the guaranteed and direct result of death. If the practice of euthanasia is
abused, there will be direct loss of life, and that is not something to take chances on. It is better
to be safe than sorry when making decisions concerning life and death, and euthanasia does not
have enough logical support or necessity to be a legal option.

Smith 7
Although proponents of euthanasia and physician assisted suicide are seeking to relieve
the suffering of very ill patients in a dignified manner, their argument lacks logical support and
evidence of positive outcomes. Euthanasia should not be a legal practice due to the fact that the
aim of medicine is to heal the sick, not put an end to life, as pointed out by the Hippocratic Oath.
While the slippery slope argument may be less convincing in it of itself, it highlights the real
issue of gaining full and complete informed consent. As mentioned before, euthanasia creates a
blurry line in regards to informed patient consent, and should therefore be avoided at all costs,
as the result is very permanent, and life can not be retrieved after it has been thrown away. Abuse
of practice is also commonly encountered in places where these practices have already been
legalized, furthering the argument against euthanasia. J. M. Dieterle, the author of Physician
Assisted Suicide: A New Look at the Arguments, supports the practice of euthanasia, but in her
article she uses a quote that shows opposition to it which says, Every human being has a natural
inclination to keep on living. [] Our bodies are similarly structured for survival right down to
the molecular level (139). Human beings are instinctually protective of life. That is why they
fight off attack or flee from dangerous situations. That is why the body is naturally equipped to
fight sickness and disease rather than to just succumb to it. Euthanasia deprives humans of their
natural inclination to survival. It poses more risks than benefits, and it has irreversible effects. All
of points along with many others provide ample evidence as to why euthanasia and physician
assisted suicide should not be made legal in the United States.

Smith 8
Works Cited
Ahmed, Iftikhar. "Euthanasia: Protecting 'Right To Die' By Denying 'Right To Live'."
Anaesthesia, Pain & Intensive Care 16.3 (2012): 305-310. Academic Search Complete.
Web. 12 Apr. 2016.
Benatar, D. "A legal right to die: responding to slippery slope and abuse arguments." Current
Oncology Oct. 2011: 206+. Academic Search Complete. Web. 12 Apr. 2016.
Boudreau, J Donald. Physician-Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia: Can You Even Imagine
Teaching Medical Students How to End Their Patients Lives? The Permanente Journal
15.4 (2011): 7984. Print.
DIETERLE, J.M. "Physician Assisted Suicide: A New Look At The Arguments." Bioethics 21.3
(2007): 127-139. Academic Search Complete. Web. 28 Feb. 2016.
Fenigsen, Richard. A Case Against Dutch Euthanasia. The Hastings Center Report 19.1
(1989): 2230. Web. 25 Feb. 2016.
Loewy, Erich H. Oaths for Physicians Necessary Protection or Elaborate Hoax? Medscape
General Medicine 9.1 (2007): 7. Print.
Tyson, Peter. "The Hippocratic Oath Today." NOVA. PBS, 27 Mar. 2001. Web. 01 Apr. 2016.

Smith 9