Original:

Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide:

A patient's choice in their type of death.

When a patient is terminally ill or is experiencing extreme pain, often Euthanasia or Assisted
Suicide can both be plausible options to end any suffering. Euthanasia is currently legalized in
seven countries and parts of the United States (New Health Guide). This number is not likely to
increase soon because of the high controversy, which is due to the very serious topic of this
matter: a person's life. The general process of these medical methods is usually understood as
a doctor somehow deliberately causing the death of a patient or helping with their suicide.
Many believe that it is unethical and violates laws, oaths, and more. Though people believe
this, it is truly unethical to not give a person a choice in the manner in which they will perish.
The exact definitions of Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide are often not clear because of the
multiple different interpretations of the words. According to Dr. Arthur Caplan, a bioethicist,
Euthanasia is the killing of a patient, by the doctor, who is unable to communicate without the
patient's consent(Health and Wellness). His definition of Assisted Suicide is “when you are not
terminally ill, but you request help in dying”
(Health and Wellness). A more commonly accepted and known interpretation for

Euthanasia is “the
killing of someone who is very ill to end the person’s suffering”, and Assisted Suicide is more

well known as “the act of helping someone who wants to die” (Euthanasia

Definition). Both of the later definitions are far more utilized by most people. When considering
the second set of definitions, it appears that the only difference between the two methods is
that Euthanasia is doctor inflicted while Assisted Suicide is completely self inflicted, however
aided by a doctor. Currently, the number of countries with these practices permitted is fairly
low. In the countries where Euthanasia is legalized, it is often restricted. Belgium tends to have
the most moderate restrictions, with a situation a few years ago almost allowing a few minors
to request their demise (SCHULTZ). Some places like India only allow for “Passive
Euthanasia”, the killing of a patient by simply withdrawing life support. This seems the be the
most common form of Euthanasia, with its existence in other countries like Ireland, Mexico,
and the Netherlands (New Health Guide). Considering the freedom and control of a patient's
life Euthanasia provides, it should be in many more places than it is currently.
When a patient is under the care of a doctor, they are the responsibility of that doctor. The
doctor should be doing their best to diagnose and treat the patient, while also obeying their
wishes. If the patient's illness is diagnosed as terminal, the type of death they will experience
should immediately be their choice. They may choose to simply live out the illness and die
naturally; give themselves a lethal treatment, otherwise known as Assisted Suicide; or the
patient may request for the doctor to give them a lethal injection, and example of Euthanasia.
In the case of the patient asking for a lethal injection, the doctor should never be required to
comply. If the doctor does not wish to euthanize the patient, the client may go to another
compliant doctor to get it done. If the patient is a minor, all parents and/or guardians must
provide written agreement to the treatment, including the patient, and the doctor must agree.
This exact situation was almost a bill passed in Belgium (SCHULTZ). A patient must also be
considered sane and “in their right mind” to make the choice to have a medically assisted
death. These all seem like very reasonable terms that should be implemented in hospitals all
around the world. If a healthy person simply wants to end their life, doctors should not be
subscribing lethal drugs, as the person is not their patient and has no medically adequate
reason to end their life. If they are a patient of a psycyatrist, it should be the psychiatrist's
responsibility to take care of the person's mental problem in another way. In other words,
Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide should only be permitted when an ill person has a qualified
reason to end their life. According to research done by Robert Pearlman, the accepted reasons
for someone to seek physician assisted death are illness related experiences, threats to sense
of self such as losing sanity, and fears about the future such as quality of life and burden to
others (Pearlman). Sometimes a terminally ill person is unable to communicate for instance the
situation of a coma patient. In this case, nobody should be given the choice to end the person's
life, unless the patient is a minor, in which case the parents should be given responsibility.
Nobody has the right to make a decision that important for someone else. In the case of lost
ability to communicate and the case of insanity, a person should make a legal document
stating what they would like done should something like that happen. If someone is on a path
to becoming unable to communicate reasonably, it should be requested from them that they
make an official decision and record it in an official document. If for some reason none of this
is done and the person cannot communicate or is unable to make sane decisions, nothing can
be done but attempting recover the patient. In the same way that anybody has the right to
choose their own way of death, no one else does.
Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide are often argued against for reasons such as ethics, the
Hippocratic Oath, patient sanity, and more. Most people who have a problem with Euthanasia
do not like it’s ethics. They believe it is unethical to kill another human no matter the
circumstances. The questions that must be asked is as follows: Is it ethical to force someone
to suffer a long and painful death in a hospital bed? It most certainly is not. Why would a dying
person prefer to live the rest of their life out painfully in a vegetative state? They wouldn't. Most
people would prefer to pass away peacefully in the comfort of their home, with the people they
love, while they can still think straight. That is what Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide offers,
and why so many people refuse to agree with that is stunning. One other worry of people is
that when the patient makes the decision to end their life, they may be in an incapacitated
mental state. This problem is easily fixable with a psychiatric test to confirm sanity. One way to
completely prevent the problem is with the plan stated earlier. Patients would be requested to
give a written plan as to what should happen if they lapse into an incapable mental state,
preventing the problem. The last main argument against Euthanasia is that the practice breaks
the Hippocratic oath, a pledge almost all doctors take at the end of their schooling. As said by
Josef Kure, Head of the Department of Medical Ethics at Masaryk University, “The Hippocratic
tradition, whose core is the Hippocratic Oath, prohibits the killing of a human being, just as it
forbids any aid in suicide.” This is indeed true, as the oath does state that “To please no one
will I prescribe a deadly drug nor give advice which may cause his death.” However, Ronald A.
Lindsay, President and CEO of the Center for Inquiry, argues that it does not:
Because the Hippocratic Oath instructs physicians not to provide a 'deadly drug,' some have
concluded that physicians, by their training and moral commitment, must necessarily reject
assistance in hastening death. This is not so. The provision in the Hippocratic Oath that
prohibits providing a deadly drug did not even reflect accepted medical practice in ancient
Greek city-states where, upon request, a physician could provide a lethal drug for a suffering
patient. In some sense, physicians who provide assistance in hastening death are adhering to
a longstanding understanding of the scope of medical practice: to care for and meet the needs
and desires of a patient in all stages of the patient’s life. Not only that, but the Hippocratic
Oath taken by doctors today can vary, and many modern versions say nothing against
Euthanasia or Assisted Suicide (Tyson). As Nora Zamichow once wrote, “Clearly, we can no
longer hide behind the flimsy shield of the
Hippocratic oath.” On a side note about the availability of Euthanasia to minors, Els Van Hoof,
a senator of Belgium argues that minors are not allowed to partake in other activities and
choices like voting and marrying (SCHULTZ). This is all true, but once again this issue is easily
resolved. By having both the parents and doctor(s) approve the lethal treatment, the potential
incompetence of children is resolved. Though many excellent points have been made by the
opposers of Euthanasia, most of them are easily fixed problems or illogical arguments.
Looking into the future, mankind may see a world in which Euthanasia is an accepted practice
among everybody, and a world where everyone may die in peace. Though this outcome may
not be near, people can only hope that this controversial affair will result with a peaceful and
painless tomorrow.