Courtney Points

English 112
Mrs. Pettay
25 March 2016
Euthanasia and Physician Assisted Suicide
Every day people are diagnosed with life-long or terminal diseases. With such diagnoses,
patients must decide whether or not they want to seek treatment. Even with treatment, these
people often suffer both emotionally and physically. Some diseases are so tragic that patients feel
like their quality of life has diminished to the point that they do not feel like life is worth living
or they are in so much pain that they wish to die. Choosing to end ones own life would either
fall under euthanasia or physician assisted suicide. Euthanasia, according to the Oxford English
Dictionary, is the action of inducing a gentle and easy death. Used especially with reference to
a proposal that the law should sanction the putting painlessly to death of those suffering from
incurable and extremely painful diseases. Euthanasia can be passive or active depending on the
care or lack thereof. Passive euthanasia is when someone is left to die by not receiving lifesustaining treatment such as breathing or feeding tubes. The Supreme Court ruled in 1997 that
this was legal, asserting that there is a constitutional right to refuse medical treatments and even
have a proxy exercise that refusal (Emanuel). This is rather common today as many people have
DNRs, which are signed papers meaning do not resuscitate in the event that they would need
CPR or other measures. Active euthanasia is the physical act of a doctor contributing directly to a

patients death, usually in the form of a lethal injection. Similar to euthanasia, but distinctively
different, physician assisted suicide is when a doctor prescribes a patient a lethal dose of a
controlled substance. The patient then fills the prescription and takes the lethal dose of
medication on their own, at home. While it has been well established that competent adults have
the right to choose passive euthanasia - the equivalent of refusing medical treatment, there is still
debate about whether or not competent adults suffering from tragic, life-long or terminal
illnesses have the right to active euthanasia or physician assisted suicide.
Opponents of active euthanasia and physician assisted suicide hold strongly to the
original spirit and literal meaning of the hippocratic oath and fear that legalizing these ways to
die is a slippery slope to abuse of the system. According to Gerald Dworkin, PhD, a professor
of philosophy at the University of California, physicians feel that the nature of medicine is key to
their inability to practice active euthanasia and physician assisted suicide. This nature of the
practice of medicine goes back to the hippocratic oath, under which doctors swear to first do no
harm, where doctors are healers before anything else. Physician is so ingrained as being
synonymous with healer to the extent that many opponents find it backwards for a doctor to even
consider committing active euthanasia or physician assisted suicide, and they have a moral
responsibility to keep their patients alive (Procon.org, Euthanasia). In their eyes, opponents
see any shift away from the role of doctors as healers, such as the legalization of active
euthanasia and physician assisted suicide, as the gateway to legal murder and abuse of the system
by doctors, family, and medical insurance providers. Legal murder would especially be a
problem in cases where the patient has left their medical decisions to be made by a family
member or friend but has not left detailed requests. This would allow that person the freedom to
choose whether the patient lives or dies regardless of what the patient actually wanted. Being

such a complicated matter, it would be easy for the system to be manipulated. Even more
sickening, and rightfully so, is the influence insurance companies could have on a persons
decision to choose active euthanasia, physician assisted suicide, or neither. Being cheaper,
insurance providers would jump at the chance to push their clients to choose one of the first
options because medical care for a lifelong illness or treatment for a terminally ill disease would
be much more costly. While the nature of the medical field can be interpreted differently, the
slippery slope that legalization creates for abuse of active euthanasia and physician assisted
suicide cannot be ignored.
Proponents of active euthanasia and physician assisted suicide cling to the right to die,
personal autonomy and interpret the hippocratic oath in a less traditional sense. The right to die is
centered around the end of a patients suffering. According to the Vacco v. Quill Supreme Court
case, such belief asserts that a competent, terminally ill person [has the right] to avoid
excruciating pain and embrace a timely and dignified death. Personal autonomy is key to
allowing competent adults to exercise this right. Cornell University Law Schools LII/Legal
Information Institute defines personal autonomy as the freedom of individuals to choose
whether or not to perform certain acts or subject themselves to certain experiences. This choice
as to what happens or does not happen to a person's own body is essential to proponents
argument. While there are laws restricting certain actions deemed harmful or destructive for the
greater good of society, personal autonomy is still crucial. Like the opponents of active
euthanasia and physician assisted suicide, the proponents believe in the hippocratic oath but
interpret it quite differently. Opponents see active euthanasia and assisted suicide as the harm
while proponents argue that letting a patient suffer is the harm.

The legalization of active euthanasia and physician assisted suicide is extremely divisive.
There is little middle ground between the two sides. Both sides generally agree on the right to
passive euthanasia - the right to refuse medical treatment, including life-sustaining treatment.
Opponents and proponents cling to the first do no harm of the hippocratic oath but do not
interpret it the same. Whether or not active euthanasia and physician assisted suicide is a right, it
is agreed that there is a distinct difference between the two: in active euthanasia the doctor
directly kills the patients, injecting them with a lethal poison, while the doctor only gives the
patient the means to kill themselves in physician assisted suicide.
The suffering of patients with tragic lifelong illnesses or terminal diseases raises
questions about personal autonomy and whether or not the freedom to control ones body and
what it is subjected to includes choosing to die by active euthanasia or physician assisted suicide.
In the United States, passive euthanasia is legal and active euthanasia is illegal under homicide
laws, but it is legal in Belgium, Luxembourg, and the Netherlands (Procon.org, Did You
Know). While active euthanasia has not made much progress towards legalization in the United
States, physician assisted suicide is already legal in Oregon, Washington, Montana, and
Vermont (Procon.org, Did You Know). Life and death is scary enough without man trying to
interfere. Taking control of that balance, cautiously keeping in mind the slippery slope of
possible abuse, remembering the need to acknowledge the right of personal autonomy and not
losing touch with compassion for those with tragic, lifelong illnesses or terminal diseases, has
proven to be a slow moving step that man is cautious to take.

Works Cited
Dworkin, Gerald. "The Nature of Medicine." Euthanasia and Physician-assisted Suicide.
Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1998. N. pag. Print.
Emanuel, Ezekiel J. "A Time to Die: The Place for Physician Assistance." Journal of Health
Politics, Policy and Law (n.d.): n. pag. 2000. Web. 23 Mar. 2016.
"Euthanasia." The Oxford English Dictionary. 2nd ed. 2011. The Oxford English Dictionary
Online. Web. 23 Mar. 2016.
"Personal Autonomy." LII / Legal Information Institute. Cornell University Law School, n.d.
Web. 24 Mar. 2016.
ProCon.org. "Did You Know?" ProCon.org. 28 Sep. 2010. Web. 24 Mar. 2016
ProCon.org. "Euthanasia ProCon.org." ProCon.org. 23 Dec. 2015. Web. 24 Mar. 2016.

Vacco v. Quill. Supreme Court of the United States. 12 Oct. 1996. Procon. American Civil
Liberties Union, n.d. Web. 23 Mar. 2016.