What is the person doing?

(Objective Assessment)
A couple in the aforementioned news article simultaneously self-administered legalized lethal
medications under the “Death with Dignity Act” in Oregon. This particular program is a form of
Physician Aid-In-Dying. In its simplest sense, PAD (Physician Aid-In-Dying) is somewhat
associated to suicide, which is automatically considered as something immoral.
However, PAD along with its restrictions, implications, and consideration to circumstances are
morally debatable. Oftentimes, two opposing views clash when we talk about morally debatable:
the views expressed by the church or what is considered to be morally ethical, and the views in
relation to Science and the Field of Medicine.
The Catholic Church teaches and believes that the dignity of a person and the gift of life is sacred.
Thus, putting an end to others’ and/or one’s own life is morally and intrinsically evil. Pope John
Paul II affirmed that: “Taking into account these distinctions, in harmony with the Magisterium of
my Predecessors and in communion with the bishops of the Catholic Church, I confirm that
euthanasia is a grave violation of the law of God, since it is the deliberate and morally
unacceptable killing of an human person.” (Evangelium Vitae, 1995). Consequently, a person’s
life should be lead in accordance with God’s plan; therefore, all efforts that would harm and violate
the sanctity of life is seen as a rejection of both God’s plan and God’s sovereignty over us.
Although the medical field, in general, has varied arguments in the matter, there are physicians
who deem PAD as something which is ethically permissible. Claims pertaining to this suggests
that the act serves as a rational alternative for people who suffer under unbearable situations
because of terminal cases of illnesses. According to them, PAD still aligns with the physician’s
duty to ease a patient’s suffering and is justifiable under its acceptable characteristics such as the
Respect for Autonomy of people’s personal choice of death, Justice pertaining to those who don’t
want to push through with their medications, Compassion towards people’s personal existential
views, Individual Liberty as opposed to the state’s interest, and Honesty and Transparency with
regards to open discussions on assisted deaths.

Why is the person doing it? (Subjective Assessment)

The involvement of an assisted death in relation to the situation of the couple in the said article is
acceptable to us. This is because the couple performed their decision in a free, rational, and well-
informed manner; taking all the possible circumstances that might occur into consideration. Also,
it was mentioned that the couple made the decision to end their long struggle with illnesses namely
a weak heart for Francie, and Parksinson’s Disease and Prostate Cancer for Charlie. The couple
also made sure that they were thoroughly informed with the process and the act was in accordance
with the law. According to studies, people who undergo through this kind of “medication” have
concerns regarding financial stability associated with their continuous medication and increasing
dependency to their respective families. However, the reason behind the Emiricks’ determination
of pursuing such medication was their desire to manage their own death together. This amplifies
their wedding vow of ‘Til’ death do we part,’ wherein only death could really separate them. Even
though the family anticipated that sharing the couple’s story and last moments would receive major
backlash, they honored the couple’s belief of helping people “change the way they think about
dying,” from a perspective of, according to Francie, “We have a faith that says life is not to be
worshipped,” and “It’s the quality of life that counts” through an assisted death. These statements
imply that our life is finite, and so, we are in command of our own lives. We are free and rational
beings who are capable of directing our own actions in relation to our choice. Thus, the quality of
life that we are living is left for us. Our freedom is inherent to us; and since the Emiricks’ were
fulfilled and satisfied with the life that they have lived, they accustomed and performed their
freedom which as stated, is inherent to us.

Under what circumstances was the act done?

Christian view on Euthanasia
It was emphasized in the teachings of the Church that we should never interfere and must always
respect the natural process of dying since God has the only authority to grant us our lives. In
relation to this, it is only right to say that no human being shall be allowed to take someone’s life
or take his own life even if that person desires to. Practicing euthanasia implies that a person
doesn’t recognize or value his own worth. It was also highlighted that even if a person is sick or
dying, that doesn’t make them lose their value and remains in constant congruency with other
people in terms of value and dignity. Overall, killing is morally unacceptable since it violates the
law of God. Although we are given free will, that doesn’t extend to the point of taking our own
lives. Our lives are considered glorious since they directly manifest the presence of God since we
are created in His own Image and Likeness.

The Couple’s Declining Health

Charlie and Francie Emerick are both terminally ill. The former is diagnosed with prostate cancer,
Parkinson’s disease, & heart problems, and the latter with a weakened heart. Charlie has been told
in early 2017 he only had 6 months or less to live. This implies that the couple have been
anticipating their deaths and are only expecting their symptoms to get worse—which subsequently
prolongs their agony. This circumstance makes the act better as it mitigates the couple’s suffering.
However, the morality of the act is still questionable with regards to the universal and Christian
point of view towards suicide and euthanasia.

Legally partaking in the “Death with Dignity Act” is only possible under certain provisions. A
person applying for the program must be: (1)18 years of age or longer, (2) a resident of Oregon,
(3) Capable of making and communicating healthcare decisions for him/herself, (4) diagnosed
with a terminal illness which could lead to death within six months. (Oregon Health Authority-
Death with Dignity Act in 1997)
This circumstance somehow makes the act better under the implication that the program does not
allow the unjustified imposition of death. Under this circumstance, the act may also be viewed as
something which is done to alleviate a person’s suffering. Although, suicide is still morally
unjustifiable, the mentioned program does provide a way for people to experience an easier death
as opposed to their sufferable faith brought by their illnesses. The intent and execution of the
program makes the act better but it does not make PAD (Physician Aid-In-Death) completely
moral.

Prolonging Life vs Prolonging Death

Euthanasia, although it carries a negative implication, is acceptable when it is done with one’s full
consent and freedom. The latter is inherent to human being along with human dignity. With the
thought of dignity being inherent to every human being, in the case of the couple, the circumstance
makes the act permissible since they were fully aware and knowledgeable of the path that they
chose to take. This is because there is a huge difference between prologing one’s life and death.
Euthanasia is classified as active and/or passive wherein the former is associated with the aid of a
physician administering the use lethal drugs, while the latter prolongs the medical treatment that
eventually leads to death. Thus, prolonging death does not validate the dignity that is inherent to
us. However, although the act is viewed to be acceptable, it does not imply that it is completely
moral.
 References

Braddock, C., & Tonelli, M. (n.d.). Ethics in Medicine - Physician Aid-In-Dying. Retrieved
October 25, 2018, from https://depts.washington.edu/bioethx/topics/pad.html
Oregon Government (n.d.). Death With Dignity Act (Oregon Health Authority ed.). Retrieved
October 25, 2018, from
https://www.oregon.gov/oha/PH/PROVIDERPARTNERRESOURCES/EVALUATIONRESEA
RCH/DEATHWITHDIGNITYACT/Pages/faqs.aspx.
Religions - Christianity: Euthanasia. (2009, August 03). Retrieved from
http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/christianity/christianethics/euthanasia_1.shtml
What is the Church's teaching on euthanasia? (2013, May 21). Retrieved from
http://catholicstraightanswers.com/what-is-the-churchs-teaching-on-euthanasia/
Why Do Patients Request Physician-Assisted Suicide? - Euthanasia - ProCon.org. (n.d.).
Retrieved from https://euthanasia.procon.org/view.answers.php?questionID=000199
An analysis of the article regarding the couple who
died by assisted suicide together

Submitted to:
Mr. Leo Ocampo

Submitted by:
Baccay, Pamela
Debil, Rona Jasmine
Leaño, Kristiana
Santos, Ann Margret

1-A-22