The Right to Die

“I would not want to live with a tube in my neck and not be able to move a finger. I wouldn’t… that to me is not life.”

Dr. Jack Kevorkian

Euthanasia is the act of ending someone’s life in order to prevent suffering in circumstances of incurable illness or injury. From the Greek for “the good death”, the word has been stigmatized by those who believe that assisted suicide in any form is murder. Proponents of the practice believe that for terminally ill patients who are mentally capable of making such a decision, it is just. Neither side is wrong. It is not possible nor would it be worthwhile to attempt to alter someone’s belief in the sanctity of life. It is worthwhile, however, to argue that there are cases in which assisted suicide is necessary, cases in which life is nothing more than agony and death is merciful. In an instance where a terminally ill individual is aware of his or her imminent death to the extent to which they welcome death as an alternative to suffering, they should retain the right to die painlessly and mercifully.

In June of 1990, Dr. Jack Kevorkian conducted the first of over 130 assisted suicides he would ultimately perform. His patient was suffering from Alzheimer’s disease. Over the following eight years, Kevorkian gained notoriety, along with the nickname Dr. Death, as he was continually scrutinized by the public, law enforcement, and judges at all levels of the United States justice system. Dr. Kevorkian believed that the responsibilities of the medical profession included assisting patients with death [1]. He served eight years of a 10-25 year sentence in federal prison for second-degree murder and was released in 2007. Perhaps more important than the patients whose suffering ceased thanks to his efforts, Kevorkian brought the issue of euthanasia into the eyes of the American people and began a conversation that continues to be had today.

On the other side of the conversation are those like New York Times contributor Ross Douthat, who regard Kevorkian as a murderer rather than a revolutionary [2]. Critics like Douthat argue that suicide in any form is morally wrong and that terminally ill patients should not be held to a separate moral code than the rest of us. Others who do not believe in the right to die, as it has become known, cite religious texts as condemnation of euthanasia. While religious freedom is a core American value, another is that no one’s liberty should be infringed upon as a result of the religious beliefs of another. From a constitutional point of view, commenters like Nadine Strossen, former president of the American Civil Liberties Union, feel that the government determining end-of-life decisions can be interpreted as cruel and unusual punishment in some cases [3]. It is these differences of interpretation and belief that make issues of this nature tremendously difficult to resolve in the public arena, particularly through legislation.

The debate about euthanasia is similar to a number of others facing the American people, contraception and abortion specifically, in which the conflict between individual liberty and religious freedom is central. Legislation in issues such as these is few and far between, however it is clear in the euthanasia debate as it is with abortion that public opinion is increasingly liberal. In fact, according to a 2013 Gallup poll, 70% of Americans believe that in cases of incurable disease, doctors should be able to assist in ending the patient’s life by painless means [4]. With this type of public support, it is only reasonable to expect policy makers to react sooner rather than later.

Euthanasia remains illegal in all U.S. states, however physician aid in dying (PAD), commonly referred to as assisted suicide, is legal in Oregon, Washington, Montana, and Vermont. Yet patients in 46 states are suffering as a result of the religious beliefs and lack of compassion of others, a great injustice from any perspective. Those who tout the sanctity of life as a deterrent for those in favor of the right to die may allow themselves and their loved ones to suffer, that is their right. But those who wish to seek death as salvation from the hell in which they live are not immoral or wrong, and to do so should be their right.

[1]http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/04/us/04kevorkian.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

[2] http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/06/opinion/06douthat.html

[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_against_suicide#United_States

[4] http://www.gallup.com/poll/162815/support-euthanasia-hinges-described.aspx