PHYSICIAN ASSISTED SUICIDE AND EUTHANASIA 1

Are Euthanasia and Physician-Assisted Suicide Inhumane?

Caitlyn R. Fink

Lebanon High School

Introduction

Euthanasia, also known as “mercy killing”, is the intentional practice in which a physician

provides the necessary assistance to end a patient’s life upon their request and consent. PAS, or

physician assisted suicide, is very similar to euthanasia, with the difference being who manages the

suicide. Euthanasia involves the physician knowingly inducing the lethal drugs, whereas PAS

involves the physician solely providing the drug so that the patient can administer it themselves

(Morrow, 2020). With both practices, the doctor and patient must have the consent and knowledge

that the act will result in the death of the patient. Those who request euthanasia or PAS typically

bear chronic illnesses that are uncureable and cannot be treated, and because of this, the patient is

burdened with extreme intolerable pain (Morrow, 2020). Patients might consider the practice if

they want a comfortable, controlled death, rather than suffering a long and painful one.

The idea of euthanasia and PAS is not something new. It has been around for decades,

centuries even. The first law that denied euthanasia was proclaimed in 1823 in New York. in result

of the passing of the law, more states banned euthanasia. In Switzerland, 1937, euthanasia became

legal, if the doctor had the best intentions for the patient, meaning that the doctor could not proceed

with the practice if he or she wanted to inflict death upon the patient for their own personal gain.

In 1938, a society for those who promoted euthanasia emerged in the United States, and in the

1960’s people started advocating for it more and more. Through the 20th Century, the knowledge

of euthanasia increased rapidly. More recently, in 2008 more than 50 percent of the residents in the

state of Washington supported the Death with Dignity Act, which allowed physicians to assist

patients who were not expected to live another six months (Brazier, 2018).
PHYSICIAN ASSISTED SUICIDE AND EUTHANASIA 3

There are a variety of terms that are related to euthanasia and PAS. When regarding

consent of the patient, the practices are identified in three specific ways. For instance, voluntary

euthanasia is conducted when the patient knowingly gives their consent. If the patient is said to be

too irrational and in a disassembled state of mind, they cannot give consent under any

circumstances. Involuntary euthanasia occurs when the patient does not give informed consent to

their death because they are declared too irrational to make their own decisions. This means that

another person will half to consent on the patient’s behalf, often their caretaker. Animal shelters

often use this practice when they are referring to “putting an animal down”. Non-voluntary

euthanasia prevents the patient from consenting when they are fully capable of doing so, which is

murder, meaning it is illegal in every country (Brazier, 2018). Involuntary euthanasia is illegal in

every part of the world, but voluntary euthanasia is legal in the Netherlands, Belgium,

Luxuembourg, Canada, Australia, and Western Australia. In regards to statistics, PAS and

euthanasia are very rare, even in countries that allow it. According to findings in 2016, “In Oregon

and Washington state, less than 1% of licensed physicians write prescriptions for physician-assisted

suicide per year. In the Netherlands and Belgium...between 0.3% to 4.6% of all deaths are reported

as euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide in jurisdictions…”(Attitudes, 2016).

Palliative sedation, similar to PAS and euthanasia, is the gradual process in which the

patient is precribed sedatives to relieve their suffering. It requires the consent of the patient, but if

he or she is unable to consciously consent it is left in the hands of their caretaker. Although it’s

intentions are to ease the patient’s pain and not to kill them, it may result in death, unlike euthanasia

and PAS (Morrow, 2020).

There are conflicts surrounding euthanasia and the subjects relating to it; hence why it is

illegal in almost every country. One side will argue that it provides not only a comfortable and
PHYSICIAN ASSISTED SUICIDE AND EUTHANASIA 4

agreed upon death, but a safe one. Generally speaking, those in opposition will debate that it is

inhumane and completely immoral, given their specific reasons. Both sides could agree that life is a

precious gift that should be protected. How it is protected, euthanasia or not, and if it is humane, is

where the controversy arises.

Discussion

Some people may believe that if the option of euthanasia was available, they could prevent

unnecessary suffering, avoid a sudden death, and pass away peacfully the way they want to. It is

important to know that PAS and euthanasia do not cause the client any pain what so ever, which is

why so many patients with terminal illnesses want to proceed with euthanasia. Maryland has an

ongoing debate about whether to pass a bill for PAS and euthanasia to be legal, but the bill has

been rejected each time. One patient from Maryland named Debra Cirasole suffers from terminal

brain cancer, and wants to be able to pass comfortably instead of in pain (Avoid, 2020). If the bill

were to be approved, people like Cirasole would have the opportunity of dying in comfort. Rather

than a long, maybe sudden, painful death, they want a death that is controlled and won’t inflict

pain on them.

On the contrary to that reasoning, some others believe that PAS and euthanasia cause

patients to miss out on the beauty of life. The loved ones of a patient usually say that it prevents

them from experiencing major life events and they would regret it had they witnessed them. Some

even say it takes a greater toll on the people close to them for the fact that it was a suicide, although

suicide, euthanasia, and PAS are very different things. In response to the previous reasoning,

Kristen Hanson’s husband who also suffers a terminal illness debates Cirasole’s opinion otherwise.

Hanson states, “Had assisted suicide been legal where we lived at that time, he said, he would

have been tempted by it, and we all would have lost out on so much, including the birth of our
PHYSICIAN ASSISTED SUICIDE AND EUTHANASIA 5

second son. It turned out his... prognosis was off by years.” (Hanson, 2020). In this perspective,

banning euthananasia and similar practices will protect the delicate thing called life. In other words,

ending a life naturally seems to bring more peace and protection than overriding a life with

euthanasia.

Supporters of euthanasia generally may believe that no matter how a patient is suffering,

they should have the choice of euthanasia if they are said rational enough to decide. The idea of

euthanasia spares patients from long term pain and suffering, which is why so many patients and

their loved ones consider it. But sometimes, that choice is not available to certain people. For

example, “California's physician-assisted suicide law allows people with terminal diagnoses to

request prescriptions for life-ending drugs. But no state in the nation allows physician-assisted

suicide for those suffering from dementia.” (Shaffer, 2020). One woman suffers from dementia,

and is certain that she wants to undergo the process of euthanasia, but she is legally not allowed. If

she were allowed to, she believes euthanasia would provide her with a feeling of dignity, as

opposed to suffering with dementia in a warehoused care facility. If she were to be diagnosed with

a different illness, such as cancer, she would be granted the option of euthanasia (Shaffer, 2020).

People advocating for euthanasia see this issue as an oppportunity for others to understand how

patients suffering differentiates, and also how it can benefit them.

The controversy with the previous topic is that others believe since only certain people with

certain conditions can have access to euthanasia, it is said that some patients are discrimanated

against and not being treated correctly. The Patient Rights Action Fund advocates for the

opposition of euthanasia. The organization also strongly promotes the improvement of patient care.

The Palliative Care and Hospice Education and Training Act is a bill that the group supports,

which provides more medical personnel with more training for palliative care. With the increased
PHYSICIAN ASSISTED SUICIDE AND EUTHANASIA 6

effectiveness of palliative care, the Patient Rights Action Fund and similar people believe that

euthanasia is not neccessary. They also believe that this will prevent any further discrimination

regarding the treatment of patients (Leonard, 2020).

Supporters of euthanasia may classifiy the act as not about the need of wanting to die, but

the need of wanting to control death to make it as ideal as possible. It is also argued that without

access to act like euthanasia, more people will unsafely attempt suicide. For example, Cecil Brush

suffered from blindness, Alzhiemer’s, and hallucinations. Cecil and his wife of over 60 years

agreed to a suicide pact, but both were botched. Another story is about a woman named Annabelle

Gurwitch who had been diagnosed with pancreatic cancer and could not bear the pain any longer.

Annabelle’s close friends gave her a lethal dose of her prescription medicine illegally. Her motive

was to obtain a peaceful and controlled death as opposed to a painful death from her illness.

Doctors later concluded that if her death was supervised by an experienced physician, her death

would have been significantly faster and less painful. It is said that people like Cecil and Annabelle

didn’t want to end their lives, but rather control them and ensure they passed peacefully and

comfortably (Crisp, 2015). If euthanasia had been a choice for them and others, it is possible they

would not have had to undergo the painfull death in which they had. The phrase “Life opposed to

Length'' is commonly heard from supporters, meaning how one has spent their life is more

important than how long they lived.

In regards to the Death with Dignity Act, many people give thanks to euthanasia for

allowing the progressive improvement of patient care, instead of reprimanding it. With this

ideology, the promotion for euthanasia only increases as more people fight for better medical

treatment. For instance, “Many physicians… reported they had made efforts to improve their ability

to care for terminally ill patients, were more likely to refer these patients to hospice, and believed
PHYSICIAN ASSISTED SUICIDE AND EUTHANASIA 7

that hospice is more accessible since passage of the Death with Dignity Act.” (Ganzini, 2005). Due

to the passing of the act, it is claimed that doctors have been more aware that the care of the elderly

should be improved. Theoretically, if patients are getting better taken care of and their pain is

significantly subsiding, euthanasia should be used as a very last resort.

To argue the previous stances, others call in educated health reasons as evidence that

euthanasia shouldn’t be permitted, one being the Hippocratic Oath. The Hippocratic Oath, written

by Hippocrates is considered to be a highly valued document in the medical world. Ideas

considered in the oath are to protect patient privacy, give the ill the best care possible, teach future

generations the secrets of medicine and most significant of all; to not inflict harm upon any patients

(Sheil, 2018). Therefore, based on perspective, euthanasia violates the oath. Since it contains what

is considered great morals in the medical field, many people find themselves agreeing with it. The

American Medical Association, the American College of Physicians, the American Nurses

Association, the National Hospice and Palliative Care Organization and the World Medical

Association all oppose acts like euthanasia and PAS (Marine, 2019).

In addition, the same people will agree that euthanasia alters the concept of right and

wrong, allowing it to make it seem like killing is the solution for any problem. It is believed that if

euthanasia were to be permitted, society would find themsevles falling down a slippery slope. For

example, Dutch doctors started practicing euthanasia for the terminally ill who requested it in 1973.

That then was revised to include those with chronic illnesses, then disabled patients, then depressed

patients. With this reasoning, there will eventually be no restrictions to euthanasia. Since it starts

out as a singular problem concerning specific people, it will then erupt into countless number of

new problems if people think the answer is always death. This concept often relates to abortion,

since it also concerns falling down a slippery slope of restrictions on life ending (Smith, 2008).
PHYSICIAN ASSISTED SUICIDE AND EUTHANASIA 8

In rebuttal, some think that the idea of the slippery slope can easily be avoided. Peter

Rogatz counters the slippery slope by claiming that if all people abide to Do Not Resuscitate

orders, euthanasia should be no different. Just like Do Not Resuscitate Orders, setting reasonable

restrictions and rules avoids falling down the slippery slope. If these rules aren’t to be amended, the

medical field won’t have to worry about it. Rogatz also claims that those supporting the

legalization of euthanasia believe that it enhances the trust between a patient and their doctor.

Rogatz says he has talked to very many people who believe they would find a greater sense of

security knowing that their physicians could provide such great help in the event that they cannot

handle their suffering any longer (Rogatz, 2003).

The opposing viewpoint would debate that euthanasia actually threatens the relationship of

a patient and their doctor, rather than enhance it. Around 60 percent of the elderly in the

Netherlands are afraid to lose their lives against their will. This is because there are possibilities of

situations occurring like the following. During the late 1990’s in Sheridan, Oregon five patients

were given excessive doses of morphine administered by a nurse. Four of the five patients were

killed, and some of them were said to refuse the drug but received it anyways. According to

criminal investigators, this happened shortly after Oregon’s assisted suicide law was passed

(Physicians, 2005). With this reasoning, it is argued that euthanasia creates a false sense of security,

it dangers the lives of the elderly, and it threatens a patient’s bond with their doctor where they

should feel safe at all times.

Conclusion

We as humans can all agree that life is a priceless gift, and it should be cherished.

Euthanasia, PAS, and related acts are some of the most highly debated controversies existing in our

current world. Are the acts immoral or moral? Do they protect life or endanger it? The sole
PHYSICIAN ASSISTED SUICIDE AND EUTHANASIA 9

intention of the practices is to spare excruciating pain, end suffering, and create the most

comfortable death possible for a patient. If the acts should be considered, it is a life-changing

decision that should be handled delicately. With that being said, euthansasia and PAS are not

immoral, they protect life rather than endanger it, but should be circumstantially permitted since it is

such a serious decision. PAS and euthanasia are completely okay if the patient has consented and

the physician does too.

To further elaborate, euthanasia and PAS aren’t inhumane since they spare a life of

unecessesary suffering and pain. Since the matter deals with death though, it should be carefully

described and strictly regulated to make sure the patient knows what they are signing up for.

Regardless of that, the practices still provide an opportunity for patients to have a safe, controlled,

and comfortable death. Without the choice of euthanasia, patients diagnosed with things such as a

terminal illness have very little options. In the case that pain and suffering were inevitable, the

patient would more than likely be permanently moved into warehouse care. Ralph Shaffer writes

about a friend that suffers with Alzheimer’s and crucially wants to avoid warehouse care “...where

she will settle slowly into the unforgiving finality of the disease.” (Shaffer, 2020). Warehouse care

might be ideal for some people, but with patients that suffer from a disease that only negatively

progresses, it is dreadful. But, with the option of euthanasia or PAS, that might not have to happen

for patients, sparing them a long death and terrible suffering.

In addition to this, not only would PAS and euthanasia prevent patients from suffering a

long and painful death, it would most likely prevent the number of patient suicides. For example,

the case of Cecil Brush. Like said before, Cecil was suffering from blindness, Alzhiemer’s, and

hallucinations, but he didn’t have the option of euthanasia or PAS. Because he couldn’t request

euthanasia, Cecil and his wife agreed to a suicide pact that ended up being severely botched (Crisp,
PHYSICIAN ASSISTED SUICIDE AND EUTHANASIA 10

2015). Suicide and PAS or euthanasia are two very different things. PAS and euthanasia are

medically controlled, it is agreed upon, it is safe, and it isn’t sudden. If PAS and euthanasia are

legalized, more patients wouldn’t turn to suicide if they wanted a way out of their suffering.

Simararily, how the choice of abortion has prevented many women from performing unsafe

abortions at home.

On the contrary, people in opposition to acts such as euthanasia would debate that it creates

the excuse that death or killing is the solution to a problem. In other words, it devalues human life

which alters the concept of right and wrong. This circles back to the claim that euthanasia

endangers human life rather than protects it. While I can understand this viewpoint, I still consider

the practices of euthanasia and others like it to be life-protecting. With this mindset, if euthanasia is

morally wrong, then Do Not Resuscitate orders are, too. Sparing another human of their prolonged

suffering does not devalue human life, it embraces it. One is not living if they spend their days in

constant pain and agony. The saying “Life opposed to Length” perfectly represents this (Crisp,

2020).

To conclude, euthanasia, PAS, and similar practices are morally right and should be an

option for patients, but with obvious restrictions and strict policies due to the extremity of the

decision. With the option of the practices, less patient suicides and patient suicide attempts will

occur. It provides the patient with the safest and most comfortable death possible in the hands of

medical professionals, rather than suffering both emotionally and physically. Since the practices are

illegal almost everywhere, the only thing that the common people can and should do, is to keep on
PHYSICIAN ASSISTED SUICIDE AND EUTHANASIA 11

educating and advocating. Eliminate the false claims and assumptions, and tackle them with the

true facts. Continue to advocate for the option of euthanasia and PAS.

Avoiding unnecessary suffering. (2020, Mar 09). Washington Post Retrieved from
https://explore.proquest.com/sirsissuesresearcher/document/2413219596?accountid=68483

Brazier, Y. (2018, December 17). Euthanasia and assisted suicide: What are they and what do they
mean? Retrieved November 16, 2020, from
https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/182951

Crisp, J. M. (2015, Jun 15). John M. crisp: We must talk about physician-assisted suicide.
McClatchy Newspapers Retrieved from
https://explore.proquest.com/sirsissuesresearcher/document/2266253877?accountid=68483

Ganzini, L. (2005). Legalized Physician-Assisted Suicide Has Improved the Care of Terminally Ill
Patients. In K. F. Balkin (Ed.), Current Controversies. Assisted Suicide. Greenhaven Press.
(Reprinted from Journal of the American Medical Association, 2001, May 9,
285)https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/EJ3010035260/OVIC?u=leba19371&sid=OVIC&a
mp;xid=dceba00f

Hanson, K. (2020, Mar 13). Maryland should reject assisted suicide. Washington Post Retrieved
from
https://explore.proquest.com/sirsissuesresearcher/document/2413219611?accountid=68483

J;, E. (2016, July). Attitudes and Practices of Euthanasia and Physician-Assisted Suicide in the
United States, Canada, and Europe. Retrieved November 16, 2020, from
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27380345/

Leonard, K. (2020). Assisted Suicide Laws Threaten Patient Rights. In Gale Opposing Viewpoints
Online Collection. Gale. (Reprinted from Standing against assisted suicide, Washington
Examiner, 2019, October 31.
https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/XMYNHJ346631440/OVIC?u=leba19371&sid=OVIC&
amp;xid=a3b4c23d

Marine, J. (2019, Feb 19). Hopkins doctor: Physician-assisted suicide is unethical and dangerous.
Baltimore Sun Retrieved from
https://explore.proquest.com/sirsissuesresearcher/document/2266096989?accountid=68483

Morrow, A. M. (2020, October 3). What Is Euthanasia and Physician-Assisted Suicide? Verywell
Health. https://www.verywellhealth.com/what-is-euthanasia-1132209
PHYSICIAN ASSISTED SUICIDE AND EUTHANASIA 12

Physicians for Compassionate Care. (2005). Legalized Assisted Suicide Would Damage the
Physician-Patient Relationship. In K. F. Balkin (Ed.), Current Controversies. Assisted
Suicide. Greenhaven Press. (Reprinted from Physicians for Compassionate Care Friend of
the Court Brief on Oregon v. Ashcroft et al, www.pccef.org, 2001)
https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/EJ3010035258/OVIC?u=leba19371&sid=OVIC&xi
d=1762f56a

Rogatz, P. (2003). Physician-Assisted Suicide Should Be Legalized. In J. Haley (Ed.),Opposing

Shaffer, R. (2020, Feb 23). My friend has dementia and wants to end her life. Los Angeles Times
(Online) Retrieved from
https://explore.proquest.com/sirsissuesresearcher/document/2371553303?accountid=68483

Sheil Jr., W. C. (2018, March 06). Medical Definition of Hippocratic Oath. Retrieved November
17, 2020, from https://www.medicinenet.com/hippocratic_oath/definition.htm

Smith, W. J. (2008). Doctor-Assisted Suicide Is Immoral. In J. Langwith (Ed.), Opposing