The Issue of Euthanasia

There are many topics in the world that are talked about regularly and bring very much public controversy with them. One of these topics is the issue of euthanasia. This topic has been the topic of many court cases throughout time and many battles have been fought over it. Almost everyone has a view about euthanasia and people become deeply pitted in their opinions. This has been a very debated issue for a very long time and probably will be forever. Therefore there has to be some medium where almost everyone will agree, or at least be slightly more content than they were before. Many people think that life is a very sacred thing and that by taking it away from someone is the same as committing a murder. Others believe that someone’s life is their own and they have the right to do whatever they want even if it means dieing. How then could people ever come to a happy agreement about euthanasia? The truth is that not everyone can, but by reaching some kind of a solution it would be pleasing to most people, which is better than no one. Euthanasia usually should not be allowed because it is the taking away of someone’s life, which might not have been desired by the victim. Euthanasia should only be allowed when the person in need asks for it, because it is their life and if they want to die then it should be their freedom to be able to. There is also a time when family members should sometimes be allowed as long as they know that their family member wouldn’t want to live a certain way. The act of assisted suicide otherwise known as a form of euthanasia should not be allowed unless it has been requested.

There are many different types of euthanasia which all have distinct definitions. Many people think of euthanasia as only one thing and fail to recognize the different kinds of it. Euthanasia is the intentional killing by act or omission of a dependant human being for his or her alleged benefit (euthanasia.com) There are branches of euthanasia such as voluntary and non- voluntary euthanasia. Voluntary euthanasia is when the person killed had given consent to be killed. The problem with this definition is that it is sometimes hard to determine what is actually voluntary and what is said to be voluntary. Involuntary euthanasia is the opposite of voluntary euthanasia. It is when the person killed did not give consent or could not give consent. Many people feel that this form of euthanasia should be considered as murder but do agree with other forms of euthanasia. Assisted suicide is “when someone provides an individual with the information, guidance, and means to take his or her own life” (euthanasia.com). When a doctor does this it is called physician-assisted suicide. In Canada physician-assisted suicide is illegal and people who violate the law against it will most likely go to jail. In America the only state that allows physician-assisted suicide is Oregon. It is understandable why some people are strongly against euthanasia, but people should understand all of the variables before jumping to conclusions.

Euthanasia should be allowed when the person who is killed gives consent and wants to die. Jack Kevorkian is a retired pathologist whose nickname is “Dr. Death” because he regularly helped terminally ill people commit suicide Kevorkian performed physician-assisted suicide many times and even filmed it so people would understand his side of things better. Kevorkian assisted many people to die including Janet Adkins who had Alzheimer’s. Kevorkian did not inject the lethal drug into Adkins body himself. He made a machine that allowed Adkins to push a button, which released the drugs into her own body, killing her. Adkins obviously wanted to die or else she would not have pushed the button that ended her life. There is nothing wrong with this form of euthanasia because the patient believed that it was her time to die and could not do it all on her own. Seneca once said “ Just as I choose a ship to sail on or a house to live in, so I choose a death for my passage from life” Kevorkian was convicted of murder many times and was released on bail twice. One release from prison was from his lawyer and the other was from a supporter of his. It is not uncommon of someone who is terminally ill to want to die and it should be his or her right to as well.

People should have the right to choose when they die, therefore assisted suicide should be allowed. Diane Pretty agreed with assisted suicide because she wanted her husband to help her die. Pretty went to court in London to try and change the law against assisted suicide and to get her husband to be allowed to help her die without risk of him being prosecuted. Pretty is a 43-year-old mother of two and is wheelchair bound with an advanced form of motor neuron disease. She is paralyzed from the neck down and just wants to die with dignity. She was turned away and told that British law states that if her husband does help her commit suicide then he could face a possibility of 14 years in prison. “Pretty’s lawyers argued that the ban on assisted suicide infringed on her basic human rights and her right to privacy” After finding out that she had lost the court battle, Pretty’s lawyer Philip Hays stated “she is profoundly frightened by the thought of the distressing and undignified death she will inevitably have to endure, and very strongly wishes to control how and when she dies” (dailynews.yahoo.com.) This kind of ruling should not be allowed because she wanted to die. It is a person’s right to live as much as it is their right to die.

When someone wants to die, they should be allowed to, and if family is involved then they should be able to make the decision for them. In 1983, at the young age of 25, Nancy Cruzan was so badly injured in a car accident that she is unaware of anything around her. Cruzan cannot move and has lain still since the accident. Gibs said “She has lain so still that her hands have curled into claws; nurses wedge napkins under her fingers to prevent her nails from piercing her wrists”. She is not dying but there is no chance of her getting any better than she is now. Her parents want to take away her feeding tube so she can be “let go” because they are convinced that she would not want to live this way. This is not a way for someone to live because it is barley living. Her parents were initially told that they could end her life but the Missouri Supreme Court reversed the ruling, “affirming the sanctity of life”. Cruzan’s parents should be able to end her life because they truly believe that their daughter would not want to live this way. It should be their decision because she is their own daughter and no one knows what she would want more than her parents. No one would want to live paralyzed and barley conscious of their own existence and Cruzan’s parents realize this. The problem is that the court does not realize this and maybe they would if someone close to them experienced the same thing. This is a case where euthanasia should have been allowed because Cruzan is incapable of living her own life so she should not have to continue on suffering when her life is basically over.

Euthanasia should be allowed unless the person receiving it does not want it. Also, when there is no way to know if the person wants to live or die. On Sunday, October 24, 1993, Tracy Latimer was killed by her father. Robert Latimer placed his disabled daughter in his truck and inserted a hose from the trucks exhaust pipe into the cab. Tracy died from carbon monoxide inhalation because she had no way to escape from the truck. At first, Latimer claimed that his daughter had died in her sleep from natural causes, but autopsy results proved otherwise Latimer said that he had killed her for her own good and that it was better for her to be dead and not suffering. Tracy suffered from a severe form of Cerebral Palsy, was quadriplegic, and immobile. Her condition was a permanent one and she was born with it. Latimer was convicted of second degree murder and sentenced to life in prison with no chance of parole for ten years. What Latimer did should be considered murder because there was no way that he could know that Tracy did not enjoy her life. Tracy was born with Cerebral Palsy and never knew of such thing as a better life; for all she knew her life was completely normal. According to her parents:

Tracy enjoyed music, bonfires, being with her family and the circus. She liked to play music on a radio, which she could use with a special button. Tracy could apparently recognize family members and she would express joy at seeing them. Tracy also loved being rocked gently by her parents.

This does not sound like someone who wanted to die. She was in pain sometimes but all of the above things gave her joy and happiness. It sounds like Latimer was the one who was suffering more from his daughter’s condition than Tracy was herself. In the weeks leading up to Tracy’s death, the Latimer’s had considered placing Tracy into a group home in North Battleford. If Latimer were so concerned about Tracy’s life and the fact that she was suffering then he would have placed her into the group home instead of killing her. Latimer was rightfully convicted of murder because that is the crime that he had committed.

Euthanasia should not be allowed except when it has been requested. Also, when the person is unable to communicate with others, the decision should be up to the family. The family of the person whose death is debatable knows the person the best and would know what he or she would want. When the cases are like the Cruzan case then it is understandable why they want their daughter to be “let go” from the life that she is barley living. However, when it is a case like the Latimer one, it is not acceptable because no one was able to tell just how much she could have enjoyed living. Euthanasia without consent or family agreement should be considered murder and no one should be able to get away with it.