ENG 1014 English for

Business
Report Tittle:
Is euthanasia murder or relief?
How does euthanasia affect the family
members?

Prepared by:
1. Chan Bowie
2. Ong Hui Shan

Prepared for:
Mr. Thomas Irving Nygren

Date of submission:
25th June 2015

Is euthanasia murder or relief?

How does euthanasia affect the family members?

Introduction
Euthanasia can be defined as the action done by Jack Kevorkian, the Doctor Death to a
52-year-old patient Thomas Youk, who was suffering from Lou Gehrigs disease. Being aware
that one day he would completely lose control over his body muscles and eventually choke to
death, Youk requested Kevorkian to euthanize him, by injecting poison into his body to end his
life. Euthanasia, compounded by two Greek words eu and thanatos, literally means happy
death or simply, mercy killing (Koop, 1976, p.69). As illustrated, physician Kevorkian
deliberately took away the life of a terminally ill patient with the motive of mercy. Is this rightful or
wrong? Murder or relief? Well, Kevorkian was then sentenced to a 25-year imprisonment, as his
act was considered a second degree murder by the court. However, Youks wife defended
Kevorkian on the court, claiming that his deed was not murder, but an act of mercy a release
for her late-husband from all pain and suffering through euthanasia (CNN, 2007). Hence,
euthanasia cannot be fully justified as murder or relief. It depends on how it is done, and of
course, people from different walks of life will have different perspectives on euthanasia. There
is a potential that euthanasia will lead to unwanted consequences, but this will be under control
if serious legislation is made. Sometimes, euthanasia appears to be a better solution for people
who are dealing with deadly sickness, compare to the heavy hospital treatment. However, it
does have impacts on people around the patients, mostly their family. It gives positive and
negative psychological impact to family, depends on how the family takes it. It may also create
and resolve conflicts among the family members, and relieve the familys financial burdens.

Background
A. Murdering, power abuse and the slippery slope
One of the main reasons why euthanasia is illegal in most of the countries is due to the
fact, mercy killing involves taking the life of a person directly and intentionally to most it is
murder. Referring to other cases of Kevorkian, at least 60 percent of his suicide patients were
not terminal. At least 17 could have lived indefinitely and, in 13 cases, the people had no
complaints of pain (Cheyfitz, 2007). Giving the authorities to doctors like Kevorkian in
terminating lives could give excess power to doctors, which may lead to a mass massacre or
other disastrous consequences. This situation is called the slippery slope by doing some form
of action or adopting some policy will lead to an outcome that is generally judged to be wrong or
bad (Lewis, 2007, p.197). The slope is slippery because there is no halt between the legalizing
euthanasia and the adverse costs that will be brought, such as power abuse by doctors in
performing euthanasia or massive suicide. Will euthanasia be a trend, where euthanasia
becomes a preferred way to die instead of the last resort to die? This must be taken into serious
consideration. In Netherlands, Oregon, Belgium and Switzerland, laws are implemented to
prevent the slippery slope to happen. Patients and physicians who wish to be involved in
euthanasia must satisfy few criteria - the request from patients must be voluntary and wellconsidered. Secondly, the patients must have sufficient capacity to make the request.
Furthermore, it must be agreed that the patients are terminally ill with unbearable sufferings,
and with no prospect for improvement in their conditions (Lewis and Black, 2013).

B. Brittany Maynard the value of life, mercy and relief

3

In the case of Brittany Maynard, euthanasia can be viewed as a relief. In 2014, Brittany
chose to end her life after being diagnosed with stage IV of brain cancer. By taking the pills
prescribed by her physician, she died at the age of 29, peacefully and with dignity on her bed,
as she planned. My question is: Who has the right to tell me that I dont deserve this choice?
was her last question before she died (Catherine, 2014). The question ignited another hot
debate about the ethnic and moral value behind euthanasia. For patients like Brittany,
euthanasia is a relief and mercy. She thinks that euthanasia is the best solution for her and her
family. Euthanasia may have ended peoples life, but it also enables them to die in their
preferred way, without unbearable sufferings and with the accompaniment of their love ones.
Some might say that euthanasia devalues life, but the question is, what is the value of life? The
value of life is simply how a person lives it, not how long the person lives. After being diagnosed
with the deadly cancer, Brittany had fulfilled her bucket list by doing the activities she wished to
do before long. Instead of receiving treatments which will lead to serious side effects and
eventually, die on the hospital bed, Brittany chose to do something more meaningful to value the
last moments of her life, and then die with dignity. Euthanasia gives her a happy ending, a
quality life, and a relief to her and her family.

Impacts of euthanasia on family members The psychological impacts

A. Positive psychological impact
Death is inevitable, and the death of a person would always give the hardest hit to his or
her family. Undeniable, euthanasia results in unnatural death of a person and the aftermath
would be the grievance showered on family members. But the grief experienced by family
members resulted from euthanasia differs from other unnatural death cases. In 2003, a
research has been carried out to determine how euthanasia affects the grief response of the

bereaved family. The result shows that the bereaved family of cancer patients who died by the
method of euthanasia coped better with respect to grief symptoms and post-traumatic stress
reactions than the bereaved of comparable cancer patients who died a natural death (Swarte, et
al., 2003). This is mainly because in voluntary euthanasia cases, sufficient psychological
preparation and time is provided for the family to say goodbye to the dying patients. It is an
opportunity for patients and family to express their true feelings and thoughts to each other, and
this seldom happens in natural death cases. At familys point of view, euthanasia is a form of
love and sympathy. It terminates all pains and sufferings from their loved ones and at least, it
was the last will from their loved ones and they respect the decision made. I have loved my wife
more than anything else in the world, and to know that she would shortly die was breaking my
heart, claimed by Cramer (2012) in The Washington Post. Yet, he claimed that euthanasia was
a rightful choice for his wife. Because of these reasons, family experience lesser grief. For them,
euthanasia is the last compassionate act from them to the dying patients.

B. Negative psychological impact

According to a survey conducted in November 2005 by the Pew Research Centre for
People and the Press, in cases where terminally ill patients cannot communicate their own
wishes, about 74% of Americans believe that the family has the right to decide whether to
discontinue medical treatment on the patients behalf (Cockeram, 2007). Also, in other cases
where patients are in a permanent vegetative state or in a coma, the pressure of deciding
whether to perform euthanasia or not will fall under their familys shoulder. A qualitative study of
familys decision shows that family would normally choose euthanasia due to the fact that they
are close to the patients, following their life and seeing their sufferings (Kuuppelomaki, 2000). If
a family were to agree on performing euthanasia, sometimes, it could result in negative
psychological outcomes the guilt and regrets. For example, there is always a risk for
5

misdiagnosis. What if the patients coma was wrongly diagnosed and unfortunately, the family
had already accepted the irreversible euthanasia? Furthermore, other family members,
relatives, friends, or even children could sometimes fail to understand the situation and think
that the end-of-life decision was extremely selfish and wrongful. Blames from the society would
also further cause distress to the family. As a consequence, family could develop traumatic and
serious emotional problems because of later regrets and blames from others.

Other impacts on family members

A. Conflicts
Euthanasia creates and resolves conflicts in family. Firstly, from a survey held in 2001,
almost half of the respondents perceived conflict about to withdraw or withhold life-sustaining
treatment during their family members ICU stay (Abbott et al., 2001). Conflicts are inevitable
when a life-and-death decision to be made due to different perspectives and beliefs from family
members. Furthermore, decision for euthanasia is something that cannot be changed after the
final decision has been made. If conflicts were to create in a family, there will be no
reconciliation due to the unchanged fact brought by euthanasia. In another point of view,
euthanasia resolves conflict between family members. Before the action of euthanasia is taken,
conflicts might be created due to various reasons caused by the sickness: financial costs,
obligation, distress and pressure while taking care of the terminally ill patient. After euthanasia is
performed, problems above are no longer exists. It may sound cruel, but it is true that
euthanasia somehow ends the conflicts, thus creates a better life for the surviving family, as
wished by patients who undertook euthanasia.

B. Relieve financial burden

The Study to Understand Prognoses and Preferences for Outcomes and Risks of
Treatment (SUPPORT) reported that families of seriously ill patients experience substantial
economic losses. In 20% of families, a family member had to stop working; 31% of families lost
most of their savings (Emanuel, et al., 2000). Taking care of severely ill patients would cause
family a heavy financial burden, resulting in despair and depression. Because of the limited fund
in hand, family have no choice but to beg from others for extra funds. As mentioned, sometimes
this can even cause arguments regarding financial issue on treatments for the patients who
would have to bear the heavy cost? Where to find such a huge lump of money? Euthanasia can
be seen as a solution to ease the financial burden, where a mere $35.00 worth of drugs can
save familys budget from $35,000 of treatment. However, in normal cases, families would never
take expenses as one of the factors in deciding euthanasia, but patients would always consider
the financial burden that lies on their familys shoulder, and this reinforces the patients will to
undertake euthanasia.

Conclusion
As a conclusion, euthanasia can potentially become disastrous legalization if euthanasia
is out of control. To prevent this, legislation is a must. On the other hand, euthanasia might
appears to be a better solution for adverse sickness. Patients voice must always be heard
before judging euthanasia.
Viewing from familys point of view, euthanasia becomes a different story. Family makes
a strong stand in the debate on euthanasia due to the close bond and relationship between
family members and the patients. In this context, it can be seen that euthanasia often brings
more positive impacts to families. This must be taken into consideration when further jurisdiction
of euthanasia is made. Whether or not euthanasia will be perceived as murder or relief,

euthanasia brings us an important connotation it shows how people with heavy sickness
conquer death bravely, and by all means, it is a sacrifice and a sign of love for the better being
of their family.

(1696 words)

References:

Abbott, Katherine, H., Sago, Joni, G., Breen, Catherine, M., Abernethy, Amy,
P., Tulsky and James, A., 2001. Families looking back: one year after discussion of
withdrawal or withholding of life-sustaining support. Critical Care Medicine, [e-journal]
29(1), pp.197-201. Abstract only. Available through: Society of Critical Care
Medicine <http://journals.lww.com/ccmjournal/Abstract/2001/01000/Families_looking
_back__One_year_after_discussion.40.aspx> [Accessed 22 June 2015].

Catherine, E.S., 2014. Brittany Maynard, advocate for 'death with dignity,' dies.CNN, [online]
(Last updated 0143 GMT on 4th November). Available at:
<http://edition.cnn.com/2014/11/02/health/oregon-brittany-maynard/> [Accessed on
20 June 2015].

Cheyfitz, K., 2007. Suicide machine part 1: Kevorkian rushes to fulfill his client's desire to
die. Detroit Free Press, [online] Available at:
<http://www.freep.com/article/20070527/NEWS05/70525061/SUICIDE-MACHINEPART-1> [Accessed 13 June 2015].
8

CNN, 2007. Kevorkian case: Kevorkian sentenced to 10 to 25 years. CNN, [online] (Last
updated 1503 GMT on 31st December). Available at:
<edition.cnn.com/2007/US/law/12/17/court.archive.kevorkian8/index.html>
[Accessed 13 June 2015].

Cockeram, P. ed., 2007. Euthanasia. United States of America: Christine Nasso.

Cramer, M., 2012. Euthanasia was the right decision for my wife. The Washington Post,
[online] (Last updated on 22th October 2014). Available at:
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/euthanasia-was-the-rightdecision-for-my-wife/2012/10/22/1b355e96-0bd5-11e2-a3102363842b7057_story.html> [Accessed on 20 June 2014].
Emanuel, E.J., Fairclough, D.L., Slutsman, J. and Emanuel, L.L., 2000. Understanding
Economic and Other Burdens of Terminal Illness: The Experience of Patients and
Their Caregivers. [pdf]. Available at:
< http://annals.org/data/Journals/AIM/19952/0000605-200003210-00005.pdf.png>
[Accessed 22 June 2015].

Koop, C.E., 1976. The right to die: the moral dilemmas. In: R.M. Baird and S.E. Rosenbaum,
eds.1989. Euthanasia: The Moral Issues. Buffalo: Prometheus Books. Ch.9.

Kuuppelomaki, M., 2000. Attitudes of cancer patients, their family member and health
professionals towards active euthanasia. European Journal Of Cancer Care, [ejournal] 9(1), pp.16-21. Available through: Tun
Hussein Onn Library < http://eds.b.ebscohost.com/eds/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?
vid=2&sid=26b52d29-d8b1-497b-b7bb-875520bce461@sessionmgr115&hid=120> [
Accessed 22 June 2015].

Lewis, P., 2007. The empirical slippery slope from voluntary to non-voluntary
euthanasia. The Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics: A Journal Of The American
Society Of Law, Medicine & Ethics , [e-journal] 35(1), p.197. Available through: Tun
Hussein Onn Library website <http://eds.a.ebscohost.com/eds/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?
vid=8&sid=1315bd17-aaae-46d0-b395df88e3682fc0%40sessionmgr4002&hid=4108> [Accessed 16 June 2015].

Lewis, P., Black, I., 2013. 'Adherence to the request criterion in jurisdictions where assisted
dying is lawful? A review of the criteria and evidence in the Netherlands, Belgium,
9

Oregon, and Switzerland', The Journal Of Law, Medicine & Ethics: A Journal Of The
American Society Of Law, Medicine & Ethics, [e-journal] 41(4), p. 885. Available
through: Tun Hussein Onn Library website
<http://eds.b.ebscohost.com/eds/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=13&sid=84243251-2c994b49-aa78-33aa903ed7ab%40sessionmgr111&hid=121> [Accessed 19 June 2015].

Mickiewicz, I., Krajewska-Kulah, E., Kulak,W. and Lewko, J., 2012. Attitudes towards
euthanasia among health workers, student and family members of patients in
hospice in north-eastern Poland. Progress in Health Science, [e-journal] 2(1), pp. 81.
Abstract only. Available through: Tun
Hussein Onn Library <http://eds.b.ebscohost.com/eds/detail/detail?sid=33ded9af615e-44fc-928b-ba1faae7c113%40sessionmgr113&crlhashurl=login.aspx%3Fdirect
%3Dtrue%26hid%3D117%26db%3Dedsgao%26AN%3Dedsgcl.297427484%26site
%3Deds-live%26scope
%3Dsite&hid=104&vid=1&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWRzLWxpdmUmc2NvcGU9c2l0ZQ
%3D%3D#db=edsgao&AN=edsgcl.297427484> [Accessed 22 June 2015].

Swarte, N.B., van der Lee, M.L., van der Bom, J.G., van den Bout, J., Heintz, A.P.M., 2003.
Effects of euthanasia on the bereaved family and friends: a cross sectional
study. BMJ [e-journal] 327, p.1-5. Available through:
<http://www.bmj.com/content/bmj/327/7408/189.full.pdf?
maxtoshow&HITS=10&HITS=10&RESULTFORMAT=1&searchid=1065018914812_8
853&stored_earch&FIRSTINDEX=0&sortspec=relevance&volume=327&firstpage=18
9&resourcetype=1%2C2%2C3%2C4%2C10> [Accessed 21 June 2015].

10