Final thoughts

My feelings on the issue of assisted suicide vary when it comes to certain situations concerning who should be allowed to die with dignity. There is a difference that many do not understand between euthanasia and assisted suicide. Euthanasia involves the physician directly administering the lethal medication. Physician-assisted suicide, sometimes called passive euthanasia, is when a qualified physician gives a patient the knowledge and means for the patients themselves to commit suicide; therefore, the doctor does not administer the lethal medication. Though I concede that active euthanasia should remain illegal, I advocate and respect terminally ill persons who wish to receive a lethal medication to end their own life. In Oregon, a terminally ill patient must request lethal medication from a physician both orally and written with two witnesses present. I find it very important that the person making the request is fully competent in her decision; otherwise, she could be making the decision on the behalf of another individual or in a moment of desperation. It is also possible that they could be suffering from depression, and a person who is depressed may not make the choice for the right reasons. Oregon’s law states that if the patient’s physicians have reason to believe that the patient is making the request out of depression or has been corrupted by another person, then the patient is referred to a psychologist. I do not think any “Death with Dignity” act is rational for people who have a mental illness, because their judgment could be hindered. These laws ensure that people who request lethal medication are fully competent and are making the request for a better end of life care alternative.

Renee argues that suicide is unethical; however, this is only true depending on the type of ethics or one’s own moral view. According to Kantian ethics, a person has the right to determine their own end, “… the inherent worth of persons derives from their nature as free, rational being capable of directing their own lives, determining their own ends, and decreeing their own rules by which to live” (Vaughn 35). What Kant says here is that humans have the ability to control their own lives including when to know it is time to die, and how to deal with dying. Therefore, the claim that PAS is “unethical” simply is not true in all cases. Furthermore, there is no particular moral view that is more correct than another is. According to statistics presented by several research foundations concluded that, “…over 60 percent of Americans believe that a person should have a moral right to commit suicide under certain conditions, such as when suffering from great pain and without a chance of improvement” (Issitt). This quote says that people have a “moral right” to commit suicide, but on the contrary, Renee does not believe in such a moral right. Her ethical view is different, and I am not saying she is wrong just that I disagree and so do many others. Another example of why moral views differ is that between rule- utilitarianism and act- utilitarianism. A rule-utilitarian might argue that killing is never right; therefore, no one should ever kill, but an act-utilitarian would argue that one could kill if it brings about the most good in a certain situation for all involved (Vaughn 32-33). Consider a scenario where a terminally ill person with six months left to live was given the choice between being kept alive for the entire duration of the six months, but with a sharp decline in mental and physical health or a choice of PAS- if the patient requests. If the patient chooses the first option, the doctor can assure that there will be minimal pain for six months, but the patient will lose competence and may not even recognize or be able to communicate with his wife in the last few months. On the other hand, the patient can live for a period of time, but when he feels that he is losing autonomy, he can self-administer a drug to end his life. In the latter situation, the man would be able to explain to his family his decision for ending his life, maintain dignity, make necessary end of life arrangements while he still had the capability, enjoy the time he has left, and he would have time to say good-bye to loved ones. Whatever the decision may be, if a terminally ill patient opts against PAS then she has the right to do so just as much as another person has the right to end their life if they choose.


Works Cited

Issitt, Micah and Heather Newton. “Counterpoint: Assisted Suicide is a Civil Right.”
www. ebscohost.com. Points of View. 2009. Web. 30 Jan 2010.

Vaughn, Lewis. Bioethics Principles, Issues, and Cases. New York, Oxford University
Press, 2010. Print.