Page 1

Jackie Ramos
Ms. Tupajic
Anatomy Block G
November 19, 2013
Right to Life and Death
Life-sustaining treatments are treatments that result in death if discontinued.
These treatments include technological interventions like dialysis and ventilators. These
also include simpler treatments such as feeding tubes and antibiotics. These treatments
may be beneficial if they relieve suffering, restore functioning, or enhance the quality of
life. However, the same treatments can be considered burdensome if they causes pain,
prolong the dying process without offering benefit, or detract from a persons quality of
life. In some cases, the burdens outweigh the benefits in which the patient wishes to
refuse or terminate treatment and has the right to do so. The patient has the right to die
so his/her request must be honored according to end-of-life care.
Sally Baker is a 53 year old woman who underwent a double mastectomy when
she was diagnosed with breast cancer. Although she successfully went through the
mastectomy, she refused to go under any further treatment stating that "the gain isn't
worth all the pain." The side effects of the treatment could be worse such as womb
cancer and bone disease. She also refused to take anti-cancer drugs because they are
actually "cell-killing" drugs that may kill both cancer cells and also healthy cells. Its
common side effects are nausea, vomiting, hair loss, bone marrow changes, fertility
problems, and emotional and memory changes. These all contribute to a low quality and
painful daily life for the patient. In many cases, chemotherapy only contributes about 2%

Page 2
to the overall survival rate. The oncologist advised Sally Baker to have radiotherapy to
her chest wall to kill any active cancer as well as chemotherapy to destroy any stray
cancer cells elsewhere in her body, and then five to ten years of hormone therapy to
prevent the cancer from coming back. Although this treatment could prolong her life, the
life she would live would be full of pain and misery. Her refusal to undergo treatment
was also influenced by her cousin who was diagnosed with lymphoma. He had
chemotherapy, radiation, everything the doctors could offer, yet he was dead within
months. She describes his experience saying, "His intensive treatment caused blinding
headaches, fatigue, nausea and weight loss, among other side effects. At times, his
mouth and throat were covered with ulcers and he couldn't eat or drink without pain. It
wasn't the cancer that killed him, but the drugs which battered his immune system and
allowed a fatal infection to take hold. These anti-cancer drugs are actually cytotoxins, or
'cell-killing drugs' which do not differentiate between good and bad cells. Not all
chemotherapy is the same; some types have fewer side-effects, but for patients with my
type of cancer, chemotherapy makes a difference of only 1 or 2 per cent to the chances
of being disease-free after five years - so, in my case at least, there would be little
benefit."
A case in which life sustaining treatment, in this case feeding tubes, was
terminated was the Terri Schiavo case. Terri Schiavo's collapsed in her St. Petersburg,
Florida, home in full cardiac arrest on February 25, 1990. She suffered massive brain
damage due to lack of oxygen and, after two and a half months in a coma, her
diagnosis was changed to vegetative state for fifteen years. For the next few years
doctors attempted speech and physical therapy and other experimental therapy, hoping

Page 3
to return her to a state of awareness. Both Schiavo's doctors and her court-appointed
doctors expressed the opinion that there existed no hope of rehabilitation. Her husband,
Michael Schiavo, stated that it was his wife's wish that she not be kept alive through
unnatural, mechanical means. Terri Schiavo's feeding tubes was officially removed on
March 18, 2005. She passed away thirteen days later. In a final postscript to Schiavo's
life, the autopsy conducted after her death established that her brain weighed half that
of a healthy human brain caused by severe damage that left her blind and incapable of
thought or emotion. The medical examiner said, "This damage was irreversible. No
amount of therapy or treatment would have regenerated the massive loss of neurons."
This was a case in which it was the patient's wish to be withdrawn from treatment and
the futility of the treatment in her situation.
Although people have the right to die, this right could do damage to society. The
act of euthanasia can devalue human life and give people the idea that death is the only
answer to the end of suffering. It also changes the basic belief that killing one another is
wrong in many ways. It is both morally and legally wrong because it allows the killing of
another person. Euthanasia and the termination or refusal of life-sustaining treatment
can also get rid of all possibility for cure of the patient. There are also other burdens of
euthanasia and medically assisted suicide. For example, in places where assisted
suicide is illegal such as Oregon, some people feel encouraged to choose death instead
of treatment because of the cost. Assisted suicide is cheaper than treatment which is
unfair to those who seek treatment but are instead forced to suffer without treatment or
commit suicide because of costs.

Page 4
Euthanasia could potentially harm society and its shared values, especially that
of respect for life, but individuals' rights to autonomy and self-determination are more
important. Individuals' rights have been prioritized in society so they should also prevail
in relation to death. Individuals have the right to life but people forget that they also
have the right to die. Individuals should have the right to die peacefully the way they
wish to instead of suffering from illness or even the pain of treatment such as
chemotherapy. It also frees the patient from severe mental and emotional pain, as well.
Euthanasia, however, is different from the termination of life-sustaining treatment. The
goal of euthanasia is to end a suffering patient's life. The goal of terminating lifesustaining treatment is not to end life, but to let the patient's illness take its natural
course, eventually resulting in death. The termination of life-sustaining treatment is
usually done when the treatments are no longer beneficial or if the patient or family no
longer want them. Tony Walter, a British journalist said, "For advocates of both palliative
care and euthanasia, the good death is one in which I make my own choices about my
last days and months. In individualistic societies, the bad death is that of the person with
no autonomy ..., who cannot communicate his or her wishes or whose brain has so
deteriorated that there are no wishes left." His statement sums up the reason why
patients, especially those with terminal illness, should have the right to choose how they
die instead of prolonging it through treatment. Although a patient going through
treatment can live longer, the life they live will be miserable, and either the disease or
the treatment will eventually kill them. Instead of choosing to die this way, the patient
should be able to die peacefully instead.

Page 5
Lastly, the termination or refusal of self-sustaining treatment should be decided
by the patient or his/her family, depending on the situation at hand. It is not morally
wrong because of individuals have the right to both life and death and should be
honored and respected.

Page 6
Bibliography
"Compassion and Support." - End-of-Life and Palliative Care Planning, MOLST for New
York State. N.p., n.d. Web. 18 Nov. 2013.
Gorsuch, Neil M. The Future of Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia. Princeton, NJ:
Princeton UP, 2006. Questia School. Web. 19 Nov. 2013.
"I've Refused Chemo for Breast Cancer Because the Gain Isn't worth All the Pain: After
a Double Mastectomy, One Woman Defends a Hugely Controversial Choice."
Mail Online. N.p., n.d. Web. 17 Nov. 2013.
"Termination of Life-Sustaining Treatment." : Ethical Topic in Medicine. N.p., n.d. Web.
17 Nov. 2013.