The Choice to Die

Eric Simpson

Public Speaking

Concept Speech

6/26/2012

The Choice to Die

     Euthanasia is a concept that has generated a great deal of controversy and media attention over the past two decades. At the core of the issue is the simple question; should an individual with a terminal or debilitating illness be allowed to choose when and how they will die? Per Merriam-Webster’s on-line dictionary, euthanasia is defined as: “the act or practice of killing or permitting the death of a hopelessly sick or injured individual in a relatively painless way for reasons of mercy” (Merriam-Webster on-line dictionary, “n.d.”, accessed 6/22/2012). Euthanasia is a deliberate act undertaken with the sole purpose of causing death. It is not the withholding of treatment, which is currently accepted as a patient’s right in all fifty states.

     Euthanasia and/or assisted suicide is currently legal in Oregon, Washington, Montana, the Netherlands, Belgium, and Luxembourg. The states of Oregon and Washington passed specific laws, while in Montana, their Supreme Court ruled that assisted suicide was in fact a “medical treatment”. Several other states have attempted to pass assisted suicide legislation, including California, Maine, and New York; however, the majority of their voters have not supported this deeply emotional concept.

     Proponents believe that there comes a time when attempts to cure are not compassionate, or in the patients best interest, and that an individual has the right to determine when and how they will die. Opponents believe that the right to die is not a constitutional right, and furthermore, is an affront to religious beliefs and the foundation of medical practice to “first do no harm”.

     Those opposed to euthanasia or assisted suicide feel that life is sacred, and that no one should legally be allowed to kill or assist in the taking of human life. There are concerns about the scruples of professionals, and how and when this choice is made. Recently there has been a great deal of debate that assisted suicide, if in fact viewed as a “medical treatment”, might be endorsed by insurance and managed care organizations. The fear is that the cost of the drugs generally utilized in assisted suicide cost between $75.00 and $100.00, whereas the cost of continued medical treatment may become astronomical. Opponents believe that the poor and the most vulnerable may find themselves without the option to live as long as they are able to.  Concern also exists around when and how lines are drawn. Opponents raise many questions. Should infants with significant birth defects be euthanized? Should the insane who suffer great emotional pain be eliminated? Who makes the boundaries? Who draws the lines? What safe guards are put in place and how are they monitored? Additional concerns lie around the term “terminal”, as there are multiple definitions.  Religious doctrines support the belief that life is a sacred gift, and is not for man to end. Active euthanasia is not supported by most medical professional organizations or by organized religion.

     The earliest American statute against assisted suicide was passed in New York. It is the Act of Dec. 10, 1828, ch20, 1828, NY. In November 1994, Oregon’s “Death with Dignity Act” passed. It was the first law that allowed physician assisted suicide. On April 3, 1997, President Clinton signed the “Assisted Suicide Funding Restriction Act of 1997” which forbids the use of federal dollars to be used toward the death of an individual.  On June 26, 1997 the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that it was not a constitutional right to die, and that states may outlaw physician-assisted suicide. In November 1998, Dr. Jack Kevorkian showed the videotaped administration of a lethal injection on the prime time television show “60 Minutes”. On November 4, 2008, Washington passed its “Death with Dignity Act”.

     Research conducted by University of Utah bioethics expert, Margaret Battin, looked at the euthanasia data from Oregon and the Netherlands ( Ethics Illustrated, A Project of Bioethics International, Article written by, Jennifer Miller, titled, “Officials Say Many Euthanasia Fears Unfounded, Published Sept. 27.2007, accessed 6/20/2012). The research focused on 10 populations including: those with disabilities, those of depressed socioeconomic status, HIV/AIDS patients, those with little education, and those with psychological issues. These populations were examined because it was believed these factors make an individual more vulnerable. Of the populations examined, only in the case of AIDS did they see more deaths. The other categories were found to be statistically less. This study was also published in the October 2007 issue of the Journal of Medical Ethics. That article additionally cited that in 2007, 456 people in Oregon received drugs to kill themselves, but only 292 actually used them. They represented 0.15% of all deaths in Oregon during that time. In the Netherlands, their definition centers on “intolerable suffering” rather than on a “terminal illness”. Of the 136,000 deaths each year in the Netherlands, about 1.7% are by voluntary active euthanasia, and 0.1% are physician-assisted suicide. The research showed that in both Oregon and the Netherlands, the majority of patients were over the age of 70, over 80% had a form of cancer, and the numbers of deaths were slightly higher in women. In 2002, research conducted in Oregon under the Physician Assisted Suicide Act cited multiple factors as contributing reasons people chose to die. Eighty-four percent of patients sought this option because they feared losing their autonomy. Eighty-four percent were also concerned about their decreasing ability to participate in enjoyable activities. Forty-seven percent were concerned about the loss of control of bodily functions.  Thirty-seven percent were concerned about burdening family, friends, and loved ones. Twenty-six percent feared they could not achieve adequate pain relief.

     In conclusion, I would like to summarize the most common arguments of those both for and against euthanasia (ProCon.org – Euthanasia, A Public not Profit website/Public Charity, “n.d.”, accessed 6/20/2012). Those who argue for the passage of euthanasia or assisted suicide legislation argue that:

·        It provides a way to relieve extreme pain.

·        It provides relief when a person’s quality of life is low.

·        It frees up medical funds to help more people.

·        It is another case of freedom of choice.

Those who oppose passage of any “Choice to Die” legislation believe:

• It devalues human life.
• It could become a means of health care cost containment.
• It is an issue that physicians and medical professionals should not be involved in.
• It has a very slippery slope when lines are being drawn.                 

Since the subject is so controversial, I believe we will continue to see this concept debated, and we may even get to vote on the matter. With that vote in mind, I now conclude by asking you, “Should individuals be given ‘the choice to die’”?