Euthanasia Death With Dignity Act: Political Science 200 Cesar Velasquez Spring 2009

Euthanasia
Death with Dignity Act
Political Science 200

Cesar Velasquez
Spring 2009
Reasons for Euthanasia

Facts:
Assisted suicide-suicide facilitated by caregiver or physician: the suicide of a
patient, usually somebody who is terminally ill, that is aided by a caregiver or especially a
physician, by the express wish and consent of the patient
Euthanasia- painless killing to relieve suffering: the act or practice of killing somebody
who has an incurable illness or injury; or of assisting that person to die. Euthanasia is illegal
in most countries.
Much of the controversy surrounding physician-assisted suicide also known as the death of
dignity act has been focus on the debate over whether the practice should be legalized. The
Death with Dignity act which was enacted in 1997, was a law that allows doctors to
prescribe lethal doses of medication to mentally competent, terminally ill patients to use to
hasten their own deaths.
Washington's Death with Dignity Act was overwhelmingly passed by voters (59%-41%) in
2008. The law allows mentally competent, terminally-ill adults with six months or less to live
the legal choice of aid-in-dying. Eligible patients now have the option to make this personal
decision with their physicians and families. The initiative includes numerous safeguards to
protect patients from abuse.
Washington patients in the final stages of a terminal illness have the choice to end their life
with dignity, on their own terms. Under this approved Death with Dignity law, a terminally ill
patient has the right to make a legal, informed and personal decision about their own body.
Voters in Oregon passed an identical law by initiative over 10 years ago. The text of the
Washington initiative is based on the Oregon law, which has proved to be both safe and
effective.
Also, a mentally competent adult person has the legal right to refuse medical treatment,
even if that refusal would cause his/her death. Medical treatment in this context includes
artificial ventilation, and also includes a feeding tube for water and nutrition. If such patient
is conscious and able to communicate, then that patient can assert their legal rights for
himself or herself.
In other cases, where the patient is unconscious or unable to communicate their current
wishes, have two legal questions to follow: (1) who decides for the patient? And (2) How
does that person decide?
1. Family and physician, together with a hospital ethics committee, routinely makeend-
of-life decisions by consensus, without intervention of a court.
2. There are three ways that a guardian can make the decision:
a. Subject test, the guardian can determine by clear and convincing evidence
what specific individual patient would hve wanted or chose.
b. Limited-object test, if there is no person’s personal wishes, the guardian of the
person will need to infer what the patient would have wanted from the patient
conduct, religious belief, or other sources.
c. Pure-objective test, if it appears impossible to determine what the specific
unconscious patient would have wanted, then the guardian of the person
must consider what a hypothetical reasonable person would have wanted.
Cases like:
1. Gonzales v. Oregon,
Fact: In 1994 Oregon enacted the Death with Dignity Act, the first state law authorizing
physicians to prescribe lethal doses of controlled substances to terminally ill patients.
Attorney General John Ashcroft declared in 2001 that physician-assisted suicide violated the
Controlled Substances Act of 1970 (CSA). Ashcroft threatened to revoke the medical licenses
of physicians who took part in the practice. Oregon sued Ashcroft in federal district court.
That court and, later the Ninth Circuit, held Ashcroft''s directive illegal. The courts held that
the CSA did not authorize the attorney general to regulate physician-assisted suicide, which
was the sort of medical matter historically entrusted to the states.
Question: Did the Controlled Substances Act authorize the attorney general to ban the use of
controlled substances for physician-assisted suicide in Oregon?
Conclusion: No. In a 6-3 opinion delivered by Justice Anthony Kennedy, the Court held that
Congress intended the CSA to prevent doctors only from engaging in illicit drug dealing, not
to define general standards of state medical practice. Moreover, the CSA did not authorize
Attorney General John Ashcroft to declare a medical practice authorized under state law to
be illegitimate. The decision was 6 votes for Oregon, 3 vote(s) against
2. Michigan v. Vanderford, 258 N.W.2d. 502, 503 (Mich. App. 1977) Defendant beat victim.
Victim was in coma, breathing only with ventilator. Brain death diagnosed five days later.
Ventilator disconnected seven days after attack. “From the record is it clear [victim] was
dead before the respirator was turned off. But even if the respirator was stopped
prematurely, defendant would still be liable, since intervening medical errors is not defense
to a defendant who has inflected a mortal wound upon another.”
3. Massachusetts v. Golston, 366 N.E.2d 744, 749-750 (Mass. 1977), cert. den., 434 U.S.
1039 (1978) (Defendant hit victim on head with baseball bat. Ventilator disconnect from
victim seven days after assault and at least two days after and at least two days after victim
was “brain dead”. Court held that disconnected of ventilator was NOT proximate cause of
death, and affirmed defendant’s murder conviction. The victim might have arguably been
kept alive on a ventilator more than a year and a day, thus permitting defendant to escape
the murder charge.).
4. Arizona v. Fierro, 603 P.2d 74, 76-77 (Ariz. 1979) Victim “was shot once in the chest and
four times in the head” he was “brain dead” after leaving surgery on the day of shooting.
Life support was withdrawn four days later. The court held he was legally dead before the
life support was withdrawn, and the legal case of death was the gunshot wounds to his head.
5. Satz v. Perlmutter, 362 So.2d 160, 162 (Fla. App. 4 Dis. 1978) “As to suicide, the facts
here unarguably reveals that Mr. Perlmutter would die, but for the respirator. The
disconnecting of it, far from causing his unnatural death by means of a “death producing
agent” in fact will merely result in his death, if all, from natural causes
6. Barber v. Superior Court, 195 Cal.Rptr. 484, 491 (Cal.App. 2 Dist. 1983) Physicians who
disconnected life support from patient in persistent vegetative state were charged with
murder. Appellate court unanimously issued writ of prohibition that prevented criminal
prosecution of the physicians. Held no legal duty to continue life support when it would be
futile.
7. Bartling v. Superior Court, 209 Cal.Rptr. 220, 225-226 (Cal.App. 2 Dist. 1984) Holding that
conscious patient has legal right to order physician to disconnect patient’s ventilator, even
though that would hasten the patient’s death. “this is not a case, however, where real
parties would have brought about Mr. Barling’s death by unnatural means by disconnect the
ventilator. Rather, they would merely have hastened his inevitable death by natural cases.
8. McConnell v. Beverly Enterprises-Connecticut, 553 A.2d 596, 605-606 (Conn. 1989) (“…we
agree with the majority of jurisdiction that have addressed this issue in holding that the
removal of a gastrostomy tube is not the ‘death producing agent,’ set in motion with the
intent of causing her own death. In exercising her right of self-determination, Mrs. McConnell
merely seeks to be free of extraordinary mechanical devices and to allow nature to take its
course. Thus, death will be by natural causes underlying the disease, not by self-inflicted
injury.
Recent case of the DWDA used
Sequim Woman First in State to Use Death with Dignity Act
A 66-year-old woman from Sequim is the first person to die under the states new assisted
suicide law.
Linda Fleming died Thursday night after taking drugs prescribed under the "Death with
Dignity" law that took effect in March. Compassion & Choices of Washington announced the
death Friday morning.
The organization says Fleming was diagnosed last month with stage 4 pancreatic cancer.
Officials with Compassion & Choices said she died at home with her family, her dog and her
physician at her bedside.
In a statement from Fleming released after her death she says:
"The pain became unbearable and was only going to get worse. I am a very spiritual person
and it was very important to me to be conscious, clear minded and alert at the time of my
death."
Her friends said she made the right decision for her.
"She couldn't stand the pain no more and she knew she was helping her family by not
having them have to watch her," said Fleming’s friend Sharon Lake.
Lake signed papers confirming Fleming was of sound mind when she made the decision.
The new law was approved in last November's election with a nearly 60 percent vote. It is
based on Oregon's measure which passed in 1997. Since then, about 401 people have used
the Oregon law to end their lives.
As in Oregon, under the Washington state measure, physicians and pharmacists are not
required to write or fill lethal prescriptions if they are opposed to the law. Some hospitals
have opted out of the law, which precludes their doctors from participating on hospital
property.
Under the Washington law, any patient requesting fatal medication must be at least 18,
declared competent and be a resident of the state.
Two doctors would have to certify that the patient has a terminal condition and six months
or less to live. The patient must also make two oral requests, 15 days apart, and make a
written request that is witnessed by two people.
Issue(s):
1. Is this is the right thing to do? Yes,

2. Who has the right to kill? We do, it is our own bodies
3. If it is okay to abortion why no assist in suicide? What is life?
Reasoning:
Reasons for Euthanasia
Due process Clause guarantees more than fair process, and the “liberty” it protects
includes more than the absence of physical restraint….The clause also provides heightened
protection against government interfence with certain fundamental rights and liberty
interest…In a long time of cases, the specific freedoms protected by the Bill of Rights, the
“liberty” specifically proteceted by the Due Process Clause includes the right to marry,
Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S 1(1967); to have children, Skinner v Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson.
316 U.S 535 (1942); to marital privay, Grisworld v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965); to use
contraception. Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S 438 (1972); to bodily integrity, Rochin v.
California, 342 U.S 165 (1952). These are cases that are the freedom that is protected by
the Bill of rights.
1. Unbearable pain
2. Right to commit suicide
3. People should not be forced to stay alive
4. Natural death act
1. Unbearable pain as the reason for euthanasia

Probably the major argument in favor of euthanasia is that the person involved is in
great pain. Today, advances are constantly being made in the treatment of pain and,
as they advance, the case for euthanasia/assisted-suicide is proportionally weakened.
Euthanasia advocates stress the cases of unbearable pain as reasons for
euthanasia, but then they soon include a "drugged" state. I guess that is in case
virtually no uncontrolled pain cases can be found - then they can say those people
are drugged into a no-pain state but they need to be euthanatized from such a state
because it is not dignified. See the opening for the slippery slope? How do you
measure "dignity"? No - it will be euthanasia "on demand". The pro-euthanasia folks
have already started down the slope. They are even now not stopping with
"unbearable pain" - they are already including this "drugged state" and other
circumstances.
Nearly all pain can be eliminated and - in those rare cases where it can't be
eliminated - it can still be reduced significantly if proper treatment is provided. It is a
national and international scandal that so many people do not get adequate pain
control. But killing is not the answer to that scandal. The solution is to mandate
better education of health care professionals on these crucial issues, to expand
access to health care, and to inform patients about their rights as consumers.
Everyone - whether it be a person with a life-threatening illness or a chronic condition
- has the right to pain relief. With modern advances in pain control, no patient should
ever be in excruciating pain. However, most doctors have never had a course in pain
management so they're unaware of what to do. If a patient who is under a doctor's
care is in excruciating pain, there's definitely a need to find a different doctor. But
that doctor should be one who will control the pain, not one who will kill the patient.
There are board certified specialists in pain management who will not only help
alleviate physical pain but are skilled in providing necessary support to deal with
emotional suffering and depression that often accompanies physical pain.
2. Demanding a "right to commit suicide" Probably the second most common

point pro-euthanasia people bring up is this so-called "right." But what we are talking
about is not giving a right to the person who is killed, but to the person who does the
killing. In other words, euthanasia is not about the right to die. It's about the right to
kill. Euthanasia is not about giving rights to the person who dies but, instead, is about
changing the law and public policy so that doctors, relatives and others can directly
and intentionally end another person's life. People do have the power to commit
suicide. Suicide and attempted suicide are not criminalized. Suicide is a tragic,
individual act. Euthanasia is not about a private act. It's about letting one person
facilitate the death of another. That is a matter of very public concern since it can
lead to tremendous abuse, exploitation and erosion of care for the most vulnerable
people among us.
3. Should people be forced to stay alive? No. And neither the law nor medical
ethics requires that "everything be done" to keep a person alive. Insistence, against
the patient's wishes, that death be postponed by every means available is contrary
to law and practice. It would also be cruel and inhumane. There comes a time when
continued attempts to cure are not compassionate, wise, or medically sound. That's
where hospice, including in-home hospice care, can be of such help. That is the time
when all efforts should be placed on making the patient's remaining time
comfortable. Then, all interventions should be directed to alleviating pain and other
symptoms as well as to the provision of emotional and spiritual support for both the
patient and the patient's loved ones.
4. We’ve become more open to suicide, should be willing to look at today

society, we have open our minds to many things such as gay marriage, the different
religion and many different diverse of people and, the different cultures we are
surrounded by. Why not be open to the death with dignity act.
Other Reasons for Euthanasia
• It provides a way to relieve extreme pain

• It provides a way of relief when a person's quality of life is low
• Frees up medical funds to help other people
• It is another case of freedom of choice
• The right of our bodies
o If we can have the right to marry, education, up bring of one’s child marital
privacy, bodily integrity, why not euthanasia?
Under Oregon’s Death with Dignity Act (DWDA), terminally-ill adult Oregonians are allowed
to obtain and use prescriptions from their physicians for self-administered, lethal doses of
medications. The Oregon Public Health Division is required by the Act to collect information
on compliance and to issue an annual report. The key findings from 2008 are listed below.
For more detail, please view the figures and tables on our web site at
http://oregon.gov/DHS/ph/pas/index.shtml.
• During 2008, 88 prescriptions for lethal medications were written under the
provisions of the DWDA compared to 85 during 2007 (Figure). Of these, 54 patients
took the medications, 22 died of their underlying disease, and 12 were alive at the
end of 2008. In addition, six patients with earlier prescriptions died from taking the
medications, resulting in a total of 60 DWDA deaths during 2008. This corresponds to
an estimated 19.4 DWDA deaths per 10,000 total deaths.
• Fifty-nine physicians wrote the 88 prescriptions (range 1-5).
• Since the law was passed in 1997, 401 patients have died under the terms of the law.
• As in prior years, participants were between 55 and 84 years of age (78%), white
(98%), well-educated (60% had at least a baccalaureate degree in 2008, compared to
41% in previous years), and were more likely to have cancer (80%). Patients who
died in 2008 were slightly older (median age 72 years) than in previous years
(median age 69 years).
• Most patients died at home (97%); and the number of patients that were enrolled in
hospice care (98%) was much greater than in previous years (86%).
• In 2008, 97 percent of patients had some form of health insurance. Compared to
previous years, the number of patients who had private insurance (88%) was much
greater than in previous years (63%), and the number of patients who had Medicare
or Medicaid was much less (8% compared to 36%).
• As in previous years, the most frequently mentioned end-of-life concerns were: loss
of autonomy (95%), decreasing ability to participate in activities that made life
enjoyable (92%), and loss of dignity (92%) During 2008, more participants were
concerned about loss of dignity than in previous years (82%).
• No complications were reported in 2008.
• During 2008, 2 referrals were made to the Oregon Medical Board for incorrectly
completed reporting forms. The Oregon Medical Board found no violations of “good
faith compliance” with the Act and did not sanction any physicians for
“unprofessional conduct” regarding the Act.
Conclusion:
I am for euthanasia, because I think the quality of life is more important than quantity and I
think people should have the right to decide over their own lives for themselves. I think
forcing people to live with excruciating pain and in humiliating circumstances is cruel,
inhumane and degrading. Everyone has the right of their own bodies, and those who are not
capable of making the decision, than their families will make the right decision to.
Resources:
Economist. "Euthanasia Should Be Legalized and Regulated by the
Government." Opposing Viewpoints: Terminal Illness. Ed. Andrea C. Nakaya.
San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 2005. Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center.
Gale. Edmonds Community College. 4 June 2009
<http://find.galegroup.com.librarydb.edcc.edu:2048/ovrc/infomark.do?
&contentSet=GSRC&type=retrieve&tabID=T010&prodId=OVRC&docId=EJ30
10168258&source=gale&userGroupName=lynn16881&version=1.0>.
Dorf, Michael C. "Allowing the States to Make Assisted-Suicide Decisions Will

Not Harm America." Current Controversies: Assisted Suicide. Ed. Karen F.
Balkin. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 2005. Opposing Viewpoints Resource
Center. Gale. Edmonds Community College. 4 June 2009
Palmore, Erdman B. "The Terminally Ill Should Have Access to Assisted

Suicide." Opposing Viewpoints: Terminal Illness. Ed. Mary E. Williams. San
Diego: Greenhaven Press, 2001. Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. Gale.
Edmonds Community College. 4 June 2009
Hendin, Herbert. "Legalizing Euthanasia Eliminates Patient Autonomy and

Reduces Quality of Care." Opposing Viewpoints: Terminal Illness. Ed. Andrea
C. Nakaya. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 2005. Opposing Viewpoints
Resource Center. Gale. Edmonds Community College. 4 June 2009
Appel, Jacob M. "People Suffering from Mental Illness Should Be Allowed to

Choose Assisted Suicide." Opposing Viewpoints: Suicide. Ed. Jacqueline
Langwith. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2008. Opposing Viewpoints Resource
Center. Gale. Edmonds Community College. 4 June 2009
Warnock, Mary. "Assisted Suicide Should Be Legalized in England." Current

Controversies: Assisted Suicide. Ed. Karen F. Balkin. San Diego: Greenhaven
Press, 2005. Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. Gale. Edmonds
Community College. 4 June 2009
Quill, Timothy E. "Physician-Assisted Suicide Is Moral." Opposing Viewpoints:

Suicide. Ed. Tamara L. Roleff. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 1998. Opposing
Viewpoints Resource Center. Gale. Edmonds Community College. 4 June
2009 <http://find.galegroup.com.librarydb.edcc.edu:2048/ovrc/infomark.do?
Spong, John Shelby. "Euthanasia Does Not Violate Christian Beliefs."

Opposing Viewpoints: Euthanasia. Ed. James D. Torr. San Diego: Greenhaven
Ganzini, Linda. "Legalized Physician-Assisted Suicide Has Improved the Care

of Terminally Ill Patients." Current Controversies: Assisted Suicide. Ed. Karen
F. Balkin. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 2005. Opposing Viewpoints
Bowden, Thomas A. "Physician-Assisted Suicide Is a Moral Right." Opposing

Viewpoints: Problems of Death. Ed. David A. Becker. Detroit: Greenhaven
Flynn, Tom. "People Have the Right to Control the Time and Manner of Their
Death." At Issue: The Right to Die. Ed. John Woodward. San Diego:
Greenhaven Press, 2006. Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. Gale.
Edmonds Community College. 4 June 2009
Smith, Wesley J. "The Right-to-Die Movement Supports Death on Demand."

Current Controversies: Suicide. Ed. Paul Connors. Detroit: Greenhaven Press,
2007. Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. Gale. Edmonds Community
College. 4 June 2009
Oregon Health Division. "Report on Oregon's Third Year of Legalized

Physician-Assisted Suicide." Contemporary Issues Companion: Euthanasia.
Ed. Lisa Yount. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 2002. Opposing Viewpoints
Bowden, Thomas A. "Individual Rights Come Before Religion." Current

Controversies: Suicide. Ed. Paul Connors. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2007.
Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. Gale. Edmonds Community College. 4
June 2009

Euthanasia Death With Dignity Act: Political Science 200 Cesar Velasquez Spring 2009

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Euthanasia Death With Dignity Act: Political Science 200 Cesar Velasquez Spring 2009

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Euthanasia

Death with Dignity Act

Political Science 200

Reasons for Euthanasia

Recent case of the DWDA used

Sequim Woman First in State to Use Death with Dignity Act

In a statement from Fleming released after her death she says:

1. Is this is the right thing to do? Yes,

1. Unbearable pain as the reason for euthanasia

2. Demanding a "right to commit suicide" Probably the second most common

4. We’ve become more open to suicide, should be willing to look at today

Other Reasons for Euthanasia

• It provides a way to relieve extreme pain

Dorf, Michael C. "Allowing the States to Make Assisted-Suicide Decisions Will

Palmore, Erdman B. "The Terminally Ill Should Have Access to Assisted

Hendin, Herbert. "Legalizing Euthanasia Eliminates Patient Autonomy and

Appel, Jacob M. "People Suffering from Mental Illness Should Be Allowed to

Warnock, Mary. "Assisted Suicide Should Be Legalized in England." Current

Quill, Timothy E. "Physician-Assisted Suicide Is Moral." Opposing Viewpoints:

Spong, John Shelby. "Euthanasia Does Not Violate Christian Beliefs."

Ganzini, Linda. "Legalized Physician-Assisted Suicide Has Improved the Care

Bowden, Thomas A. "Physician-Assisted Suicide Is a Moral Right." Opposing

Smith, Wesley J. "The Right-to-Die Movement Supports Death on Demand."

Oregon Health Division. "Report on Oregon's Third Year of Legalized

Bowden, Thomas A. "Individual Rights Come Before Religion." Current

You might also like