Jacob Kevorkian was an American pathologist and euthanasia activist who was arrested and tried for the death of at least 130 terminally patients in 1999. The media often portrayed Kevorkian as, “Dr. Death”; however, many Americans consider him a hero because he acted on requests from suffering patients who desperately wanted peace. Kevorkian explained his actions by testifying, “My intent was to carry out my duty as a doctor, which was to end the suffering of my patients.” Kevorkian’s case is what kick-started the platform for reform of physician-assisted suicide (PAS) in the United States. Since his trials, five states have legalized PAS via legislation and following this new-found legalization, more states intend on doing the same (procon.org). This case is symbolic of the two-sided debates that follow PAS. Some people argue that PAS is immoral and conflicts with religious views, while others support it because they believe in the basics of human rights and compassion. When people see the word euthanasia, they tend to define it in two different ways. Euthanasia, as with murder, carries a negative connotation and is a word critics often associate with PAS. For others, euthanasia means the painless killing of a patient suffering from an incurable disease. After analyzing both sides of the topic, a compassionate decision would conclude that capable and coherent terminal patients should be given the right to PAS; not only to end their suffering, but also to preserve an individual’s right to determine their own fate. 

In 1997, the state of Oregon passed the Death with Dignity Act: a piece of legislation that enables a competent adult, with a terminal illness and whom desires to end their life, access to a lethal dose of medication. It provides an “end-of-life” option that allows certain eligible individuals to legally request medication to end their life in a peaceful, humane, and dignified manner. In order for a person to qualify for assisted suicide, they must be eighteen years or older, be a resident of Oregon, and be able to verbalize and understand their decisions, while also having a diagnosis of a terminal illness with less than six months to live. After considering alternatives like hospice care, a clear-headed decision must be communicated with the patients’ doctor a minimum of three times (Volker 2007). The first step is making a “formal oral request”. After fifteen days of the request, another oral request must be made, followed by a written request form signed by two witnesses (Engber). Once the request is received and approved by at least two physicians, the patient is prescribed one of two kinds of barbiturates; powder form or Nembutal, a liquid form (Engber).  After consumption, the patient slips into coma after five minutes, and a peaceful death usually comes about half an hour later. 

On June 26, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court granted the right for same-sex couples to marry in all fifty U.S. states. On May 3, 2016, President Obama ordered public schools and other establishments to open restrooms to transgender individuals. These examples, along with many others, are examples from the “Pro” wave movement in the United States. This movement stands for the freedom of expression and basic human rights. There are so many other human rights being granted, but a person suffering from a terminal illness still cannot die peacefully without personally taking his or her own life. According to an article published by Cornell University Law School, the first amendment protects the right to freedom of religion and freedom of expression from government interference. With this being said, people should have the right to their own bodies. By not permitting this freedom, there is a direct violation of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. This injustice can easily be summed up with a quote from Dr. Wolf Breiman, which states, “... It just absolutely makes sense, it’s such a basic right to me. I don’t see how you can take the Constitution seriously and not agree that it’s consistent with the rest of the liberties we have,” (Medina). Moreover, in the preamble of the Declaration of Independence it states, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness (US 1776).” This right is a liberty that cannot be denied because in certain cases, death is the only way to end suffering and accomplish a patient’s personal “pursuit of happiness.” Dr. Kevorkian’s attorney, Geoffrey N. Figer voices the absurdity perfectly by stating, “A law which does not make anybody do anything, that gives people the right to decide, and prevents the state from prosecuting you for exercising your freedom not to suffer, violates somebody else’s constitutional rights is insane” (De La Torre). Therefore, by failing to grant an individual the right to their own body, the United States is directly ignoring unalienable rights and laws that have been promised to our country since 1776.

Another relevant question to consider is why euthanasia is almost always considered appropriate for animals, but not humans? According to Jessica Pierce, Ph.D., who is a veterinarian, bioethicist, and author, the owners of her patients are always eager to talk about their animal’s end-of- life treatment. Pierce states that people are often saying, without provocation, that they wished the world could have as much compassionate for human lives as they do for animals (Pierce). By denying an individual the same sympathy that we grant our pets, this implies that what we do for our pets at the end of life to stop suffering is morally inappropriate if done to people (Pierce). There should be a way out for suffering people too. It is daring to draw a connection between the lives of animals and humans; however, the comparison raises an important question: If we can do this for our pets, why can we not show the same compassion for our human loved ones?

“Physician-Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia in Washington State,” written by a group of New York City public health experts, is an article, published by The JAMA Network (The Journal of the American Medical Association), to study the responses and feelings, as well as experiences about physician-assisted suicide in Washington, DC in 1996. To estimate how often physicians receive requests for PAS and euthanasia, a two-part questionnaire was mailed out to 1,453 potential responders. The results concluded that in the past year, 12% of the responding physicians received one or more requests for physician-assisted suicide, and about 4% requested euthanasia and that the diagnoses most often associated with the requests were cancer, acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS), and neurological diseases (Back).  Even though it was not yet legal in Washington state, some of the physicians provided assistance anyways. These results raise the question of how to ensure quality in the evaluation of patient requests for PAS, because these cases are almost always circumstantial. These results are extremely supportive of the fact that PAS can be a positive implication, if it is done in the correct manner.  

More reassuring evidence that supports the legalization of PAS in U.S. states is from Dr. Diane Meier, and other contributors in the article, “Characteristics of Patients Requesting and Receiving Physician-Assisted Death.” This is a study of 1,905 physicians that deal with terminal health cases that were conducted by Diane Meier, MD, et al. in order to record the different types of patients requesting physician-assisted suicide in 2003. Based on an extensive questionnaire, people requesting and receiving assistance in passing are terminally ill with little time to live and a high amount of physical suffering. Further analysis shows that almost half (47%), had a primary diagnosis of cancer, 53% were described as dependent, and the majority (90%), were lucid, but had experienced a recent deterioration in functional status (Meier). The main author of this article is Dr. Diane E. Meier. She is the director to the Center to Advance Palliative Care and the as professor of Medical Ethics at The Catherine and Henry J. Gaisman Foundation, they focus on giving for hospitals and medical research. 

Three European countries: Switzerland, Belgium, and the Netherlands, have already openly and legally authorized assisted dying of terminal patients at their request (“World Laws on Assisted Suicide”). Grace Pastine, conductor of a TedTalk about the new Death with Dignity Laws that were passed in Canada in February 2015, fluently explains to her audience to keep fighting for PAS to be legalized all across the globe. She believes that everyone in the world has the right to die with compassion, protection, and peace and she is not the only one. This raises the question that if countries from all over the world are legalizing PAS, what is holding the U.S. back?

New York Times’ author, Haider Javed Warraich comments on the issue of physician-assisted suicide stating, “These days many patients fear what it takes to live more than death itself” (Warraich). The side of society that is most against the law, shockingly enough, are doctors. Most people, as well as physicians, are claiming that it is against The Hippocratic Oath (an oath stating the obligations and proper conduct of doctors). Conceivably, most of those who have this opinion are not aware that in Canada “only a handful of medical schools use the Hippocratic Oath because it is inconsistent with its principles” (Barnard 28). The oath basically makes the physician promise to relieve pain and not to administer deadly medicine. This oath cannot be applied to cancer patients because these patients are often treated with chemotherapy, a form of radioactive medicine that is poisonous to the body. As a result of chemotherapy, the body suffers astonishing pain, hair loss, vomiting, and in some cases, death (De La Torre). If this is the case, then chemotherapy should be considered a lethal medicine because of its effects on the human body, thus making it contradictory towards to Hippocratic Oath. This illogicality is why the Hippocratic Oath should not be used to reject the right to PAS.

“Slippery slope” is another concern about the legalization of PAS, which predicts the abuse of people in vulnerable groups. Yet, the data from Oregon (taken from the annual and cumulative reports from 1998-2006) as well as data from the Netherlands were searched to find any evidence of abuse of vulnerable patients and none were found. The rates of PAS showed no evidence of a heightened risk for groups susceptible to abuse. A conclusion was reached that there is no current evidence for the claim that there is a disproportional impact on patients in vulnerable groups where PAS and euthanasia are legal. “Slippery slope” effect in this case means that it could lead to the death of some patients who are not ready to die. For example, in the final chapter of Nigel Biggar’s book, Aiming to Kill: The Ethics of Suicide and Euthanasia, Biggar states that, “The history of the development of the Nazi policy of involuntary euthanasia indicates that such effects are indeed a possibility that even contemporary liberal societies must reckon with” (167). His statement meaning that there will be grave effects if the responsibility of human life values waver. However, PAS is not decreasing the value of human life, so much as it is increasing the respect for it. With no evidence to support his claim and by neglecting to include the increasingly positive results from recent studies coming from Oregon, this makes Biggar’s claim insignificant. 

Evelyn Harden and her Husband, Nelson, both in their early nineties, lived together in El Paso, Texas. Evelyn had been in anguish from her incurable disease and was begging for a way out when pain relief was no longer an option. In a desperate attempt to end the pain his wife of 65 years was enduring, Nelson shot and killed Mrs. Harden. On October 27, 2015 Mr. Harden was charged with the murder of his wife. This is only one of the many stories where PAS could have been the answer for many who are in misery because of their incurable diseases. If the Death with Dignity Laws were passed in all fifty of the U.S. states, then tragedies like this could be completely avoided. 

Medical advancements today have achieved remarkable accomplishments in prolonging the lives of human beings. According to a Lone Star College online publication, “For those patients who have a realistic chance of surviving an illness or accident, medical technology is science’s greatest gift to the word” (De La Torre). For terminally ill patients, however, this is not the case; it is just a means of prolonging suffering. It is time for the United States law to keep up with the advancements made in modern medicine. This topic can easily effect anyone at any point in time and more attention needs to be paid to PAS. It can be as easy as emailing your governor stating that you at least want the right to end your life, because everyone has the right to die on their own terms, in a dignified way, in the instance of a terminal illness. PAS and euthanasia need to be an option for those patients suffering from terminal illnesses who have the healthy mindset to decide for themselves. It is time to put something into effect for people who do not wish to be kept alive longer than their bodies can withstand.
