Abstract
This report focuses on the issue of assisted-death methods, how they are progressing, and how they are slowly having a greater effect on society in general. To start it demonstrates the differences between euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide, and the implications that define them. Afterwards it gives certain examples and some statistics based on the issue specifically in the United States. Then it gives details some of the arguments used by the public to advocate and oppose the issue. Subsequently it provides info on the most general views religious affiliations have. The report concludes by advocating to the public for greater awareness towards the issue.
Community Problem Report: Assisted Suicide
In the past years, science has increasingly made progress in the field of medicine, and as a result the life expectancy of the human race has never been higher. But as improvements are made to promote life, some treatments do not always alleviate maladies completely or are even able to cure them, they just literally “promote life;” individuals are just kept alive, which consequently may bring chronic anguish to these individuals and to the people that are close to them. In such cases many individuals consider euthanasia as an alternative, but this brings up many questions: What actions could be considered as euthanasia? Is euthanasia morally correct, and if so under what terms? What motives could prompt an individual to want to die? What stand do religious groups take? This issue has been going on for years, and although illegal almost in all over the world, opposite opinions have not led to any argumentative conclusion.
Although popular belief has made euthanasia include any type of assisted suicide, legally speaking not all forms of assisted suicide are considered to be euthanasia. Assisted death could be separated into two different broad areas: Euthanasia and Physician-assisted suicide. An action could be considered as euthanasia when an individual causes the death of an individual through action or inaction. This means that a person has to actually intervene through the process in some manner. Examples could include delivering a lethal dose or suspending a life-dependent treatment. Physician-assisted suicide refers to giving an individual the means necessary to kill him or herself. This implies that the person providing the means does not aid the dying individual in any form of action other than the provision itself. An example could consist of a doctor prescribing the lethal dose to a patient, but lets the patient administer it rather than administering the injection himself. Unlike euthanasia, physician-assisted suicide is legal in some parts of the world, including only the states of Oregon and Washington in the United States. But even so, physician-assisted suicide is only legal under very strict terms. For instance, the Washington and Oregon Death with Dignity Acts decree that only individuals that are fully competent to make such decision and have a life expectancy of about 6 months can be eligible for physician-assisted suicide, thus showing that even if legal, this type of assisted suicide is not regarded much differently than euthanasia (From this point onwards referring to euthanasia in this report implies all types of assisted suicide).
For the past decade, euthanasia has been a growing concern in the United States due to its increased awareness and employment, mainly since it was legalized in the state of Oregon (since 1998), and most recently in the state of Washington (since 2009). Concern has also increased due to speculations that the law may expand to the states of Montana, Connecticut, and Massachusetts. According to state reports, 36 people in Washington and 59 in Oregon died in the past year from physician-assisted suicide; since 1998, a total of 460 patients have passed away in Oregon (an average of 38 people per year, making last year’s result higher than average). Ten of those that died in Washington claimed that they were uneasy of being a burden to their close ones, while eleven said they were troubled with pain and one with financial issues. As an overall result, many individuals have found these types of laws a threat to society, and are afraid that over time they become more liberal and pertain to a much broader group of people, which will ultimately lead to the full legalization of any type of assisted suicide to a general public in the United States.
People are usually at antipodes when picking sides on the issue of euthanasia, and both sides have strong points to support their arguments. People in favor of euthanasia refer much to the individual’s rights. In democratic societies, it is considered that death is an autonomous matter and the ultimate decision to live or not should be left to the individual. Euthanasia advocates believe that prohibiting such action would be like an infringement of our unalienable rights. Moreover there is the issue of compassion; many of the people that consider assisted death are suffering of endless pain and anguish, and perceiving the issue from an emotional side, many people contemplate it would be more humane to allow these individuals to rest in peace rather than live in torment. In contrast, arguments against euthanasia pertain much to value of a human life. Those who are against (of which many have some religious affiliation) believe that allowing euthanasia diminishes our value of the sacredness of life. According to them, life is consecrated and therefore no one has any right to alter it. They argue that if euthanasia begins to be employed, we will lose our moral sense of a human life. Moreover, opponents consider the possibility of a “slippery slope” effect, and that the employment of euthanasia might lead to non-voluntary euthanasia, and the death of individuals without the benefit of a choice. Non-voluntary euthanasia is already being practiced in some forms (for instance, when a patient is unconscious and the decision of life or death is made by an appropriate individual), but opponents fear that the constant use of euthanasia will create a state in which, if the death of a person appears to be the most advantageous to an impartial party, people could suffer a death they never requested. Both opposite parties have valid points, but none have led to any sort of compromise.
According to reports, of the many factors that could make a person take a certain stance on the issue, the strongest one appears to be religion. Almost all religious groups, including Christianity and Islam (which are the biggest two), are against euthanasia. Many of these religious groups believe that life is a gift given to them by their respective Gods, and taking away this present is to be regarded as a great blasphemy under any circumstances. As stated by the Vatican in their Declaration of Euthanasia (1980), “For it is a question of the violation of the divine law, an offense against the dignity of the human person, a crime against life, and an attack on humanity.” Furthermore, the Catholic Church also requests to anyone that works in the field of medicine to learn to use their abilities properly and to know the limit to which they should exercise them. As a result, due to the correlation between euthanasia and religion, plus the vast amount of religious followers in the world, there has continued to be great opposition to its usage and practice over the course of time.
Euthanasia will most likely be a heatedly debated subject for coming years in the U.S. and other areas of the world, so people should be aware of it and the way it may affect their future lives. There always exists the possibility that one may find himself in a situation where he is affected directly by it; therefore it should be regarded as an important matter by the public. As the issue is politically reviewed and argued over its positive and negative effects, the populace will have to be attentive and make sure their voice and opinions are heard to ensure their interests of life or death are upheld.
References
Angeli, E., Wagner, J., Lawrick, E., Moore, K., Anderson, M., Soderland, L., & Brizee, A. (2010, May 5). General format. Retrieved October 31, 2010, from http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/560/01/
Braddock, C. H., & Tonelli, M. R. (2008, April 11). Physician-assisted suicide. Retrieved October 5, 2010, from http://depts.washington.edu/bioethx/topics/pas.html#ques7
Chan, L., & Lien, D. (2010). The value of planned death. Journal of Socio-Economics, 39(6), 692-695. doi:10.1016/j.socec.2010.06.007
Definition of euthanasia. (1998). In MedicineNet.com . Retrieved October 25, 2010, from http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=7365
Euthanasia. (2010). In Encyclopædia Britannica. Retrieved October 25, 2010, from http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/196711/euthanasia
Moulton, B. E., Hill, T. D., & Burdette, A. (2006). Religion and trends in euthanasia attitudes among U.S. adults, 1977-2004. Sociological Forum, 21(2), 249-272. doi:10.1007/s11206-006-9015-5
Obvious fact rtL campaigners have apparently missed: euthanasia and depression-related suicide are quite different issues. (2010, September 13). In An Onymous Lefty. Retrieved October 20, 2010, from http://anonymouslefty.wordpress.com/2010/09/13/actually-euthanasia-and-youth-suicide-are-quite-different-issues/
Prado, C. G. (2008). Choosing to die (pp. 186-198). New York: Cambridge University Press.
