The Suicide in the USA - Research Paper Example

Module How Successful are Organizations Related to Assisted Suicide in the US that Attempt to Polarize Public Opinion Through the Use of Language in Their Campaign” There are different expressions that describe the deliberate termination of life in people whose illnesses have made their lives unbearable owing to pain or mental suffering. It is believed that the word euthanasia comes from the Greek word, euthanatos, which basically suggests an easy and painless death. In the modern world, the word euthanasia is used to describe killing someone due to sympathy with their unsustainable life. Euthanasia is also referred to as mercy killing. Though euthanasia is not permitted in many nations, many people still understand its basic concept and arguments about its practice are rife. In some European nations such as the Netherlands, euthanasia is accepted in some circumstances. The Dutch government has even discussed how physicians who agree to kill their terminally ill patients can be kept from being held responsible for their deaths. STATES THAT ALLOW EUTHANASIA Over the past three decades, “American law in many states has given its citizens more rights over the events that take place in their own lives” (Amarasekara and Bagaric, 399). One of these rights is the right to determine when to discontinue medical procedures that will sustain their lives. The difference between euthanasia or mercy killing and the rejection of medical treatment has not been discussed at depth in public forums. Basically, the frequently used expression of the "right to die" mucks the distinction. In addition, the mass medias exposure of individual cases of euthanasia simply serves to distort the difference between public policy and a private act. There exists a distinct difference between “what a person might feel is practical in a particular case and what would really occur in the offices of physicians and other medical practitioners if euthanasia and assisted suicide became an accepted medical procedure” (Appel, 2). This topic is of the great significance as the public opinion polls, which always confront this issue by considering whether the members of the public think they will seek this way out if they were struck by a painful terminal illness, usually do not confront the issue of what it would mean if killing was made to be an acceptable practice that can be carried out by medical practitioners without fear of being prosecuted. Assisted suicide takes place when one individual helps another to take his or her own life, either by offering the instrument to commit suicide or by other basic steps. Euthanasia involves direct procedures, like a lethal injection, administered by one individual to end another individuals life. Euthanasia can be voluntary carried out with the clear consent of a qualified adult, or it can be carried out without permission, in which case it is identified as "non-voluntary" euthanasia. Euthanasia that is administered over a sick person’s objection is known as "involuntary" euthanasia. While euthanasia can actually be provided by a sick person’s family members or relatives, public debate on this subject is usually centered on the subject of when euthanasia is provided by physicians and other medical practitioners. In the medical framework, euthanasia is generally offered by lending medications and prescriptions to terminally ill patients that desire to end their sufferings. If euthanasia was to be legalized in most states “it would be likely that most physicians would use a lethal injection in cases of euthanasia” (Battin 36). Thesis Statement: Due to the fact that the healthcare systems of various nations have been unable to effectively medicate the pain that terminally ill patients usually suffer from, making the practice of euthanasia legal would be extremely dangerous for the many people who are vulnerable and sick. However, patients who wish to end their lives due to the constant distress caused by terminal illness should be allowed to access relatively painless drugs to do so instead of having to turn to health workers who are not well versed with the drugs that would be necessary for such cases. Historical and Cultural Background of Euthanasia Debate In the U.S., euthanasia is still a rare occurrence. Very few states have laws permitting euthanasia. Since the presidential election in 2008, two states, Washington and Oregon, have ratified the ‘Death with Dignity’ laws. In 1994, “Oregon passed a Death with Dignity (DWD) Act after a Citizen Initiated Referendum. Still, this rule was not realized until 27 October 1997. In the interim, the Act was legally challenged and this stopped it from being used” (Battin 59). The Death with Dignity rule permitted people who are terminally sick and those in constant pain to request their physicians for lethal medication. In this process, patients have to make a written request as well as two verbal requests in the presence of one or more witnesses. Two physicians must then agree on the patient’s diagnosis, prospects and the capacity to bear the symptoms of the illness as well as the attendant pain. This rule also states that the patient has to commit assisted suicide, if his or her request is accepted, by injecting the lethal medication into the body. The Washington and Oregon rules plainly forbid euthanasia, which is where someone injects a sick person with a lethal cocktail of drugs after the request to be allowed to die. According to Biggar (49) “the number of patients who use the Death with Dignity is documented on a yearly basis; and it has been established that in 2004, 42 terminally ill patients had used it in the previous years.”   The loss of dignity and the loss of independence were the two factors that were most frequently named by patients as the reason why they did not wish to live anymore. Another state that allowed for certain patients to be able to use the ‘Death with Dignity’ rule is Montana. The New York Times reported on 31 December 2009, that the Supreme Court in Montana decided that no clauses in the state law sought to stop terminally ill patients from seeking help from physicians to end their lives. Strategies Used by Advocates as well as Opponents of Euthanasia that Polarize the Public Euthanasia advocates maintain that there should be respect for how people choose to live their lives. Such human dignity necessitates the legalization of euthanasia. On the other hand, the opponents of the practice of euthanasia assert that in the interests of the dignity of human existence, euthanasia as a practice should never be sanctioned. In short, the idea of human dignity and what is necessary to revere it is central to most public discussions concerning euthanasia. The arguments regarding the sanctity of life as well as autonomy in this difference of opinion are not often well understood, by the greater public. According to Boonin (76) “a likely breach in public awareness where the different views on euthanasia is concerned is in the considerable body of experimental evidence collected over many years on the function of accommodating jurisdictions”, like the Netherlands. In Netherlands, the practice of euthanasia is sanctioned. Comprehending what the gathered information indicates can be a hard task. According to Boyle (59), “critics who espouse different views on the subject of euthanasia usually allude to the same information when seeking to reach opposite conclusions.” Experimental evidence is also often used by different critics to affect the authenticity of the debate on euthanasia. According to Boyle (61) public debate that makes use of accumulated information and its interpretations offers the opportunity to “appraise general concerns about assisted suicide like the issue of ‘slippery slopes’ and the possibility of vulnerable people being harmed by overzealous proponents of euthanasia.” Direct engagement would also facilitate a more nuanced evaluation of the widespread claims that are often made by both the opponents as well as advocates of euthanasia. The opposing sides in the euthanasia debate usually use different tactics to influence the public to support their particular viewpoints. According to Griffiths, Wyers and Adams (102) “the ‘right to die’ advocates often phrase their arguments with expressions such as voluntary choice and personal freedom”. These are terms that do not sound harsh or conclusive; indeed, they even appear to be supportive of promoting human rights. However, the reality is, the allegation that people have the ‘right’ to put an end to their lives (voluntary euthanasia), automatically introduces the concept of non- voluntary euthanasia –which is the sanctioned murder of patients who do not wish to be killed-into the debate. The argument behind this precept is that an individual should not be refused this particular "right" just because he may not be able to verbalize this request. In this aspect, euthanasia advocates define the "right" in question as being the freedom from affliction. What they seek to convince the public is that an individual should not be deprived of the right not to suffer simply because he cannot vocalize his wish to die. According to Luper (93) “… what the proponents of euthanasia neglect to mention is that such an argument will inevitably result in involuntary euthanasia”. The unspoken inference of this argument is that the patient may not be in a position to suitably appraise the available choices for treatment in the circumstances; and so the attending doctor has the right to step in and carry out the actions that seem to be the best in his or her estimation. The advocates of euthanasia also tend to use language that hides true intent when describing aspects of euthanasia. Expressions like ‘helping to die’ and ‘assist in dying’ sound innocuous and may not carry the real magnitude of what euthanasia is about. According to Orfali (64), this is circumspectly veiled language is quite similar to the term "pro-choice," which makes something that might be considered by conservative members of the public to be evil sound quite good. For instance, voters who are participating in a ballot initiative about whether to ratify euthanasia or not, might inadvertently even vote for its legalization because they may have misunderstood the language used to refer to among other options. Proponents of euthanasia are unlikely to obviously state what they support in clear terms as it gives the public a feeling that people can be murdered at will by doctors who they trust to help them. According to Pugno (219), “expressions such as "help in dying" are more likely to be used even though they mislead the public as they distort the vital moral distinction between helping a dying person in performing his or her daily personal chores and engaging in an act that results in the death of a terminally ill person.” The very expression “death with dignity” has been corrupted to mean something other than what it really means. For example, it can be said that Mother Teresa "assisted" many terminally sick people when they were in their deathbeds. What this means is that they were comforted by her presence and were encouraged to face death because they were not alone. She even reassured the dying that they were going to a much better place; and thus encouraged them to even look forward to a better life after their deaths. Her actions stand for the true meaning of expressions such as assistance in dying and death with dignity. According to Shaw (537), “vague language as well as the purposeful confusion of significant legal and ethical concepts is something that clouds the public’s perception of the contentious subject of euthanasia.” Language is not unbiased, particularly where the euthanasia debate is concerned. The use of language to hide the true meanings of choices offered to patients is something that has even become a reality in hospitals, particularly in nations that have sanctioned euthanasia. For example, whether a medical practitioner states that patients should be offered all the available cures to alleviate their pain, even if some treatment could shorten life, or states that patients should be offered all available treatment to end their pain, his comments can be taken to mean the same thing by a patient or his family members. However, when properly understood, the former statement does not support the option of legalizing euthanasia, while the latter might actually support it and actually the law accordingly. According to Smith (93), “euthanasia advocates also intentionally confuse the practice of euthanasia with the withdrawal of life-support measures.” They state there is no discrepancy in either causation or intention between ceasing life-support measures when this leads to the death of a patient and actually administering a lethal injection to a sick person. This, they state, is because the patient is killed by the actions of the physician in both cases. This identical causation indicates, according to euthanasia proponents, that if the public chooses to accept the fact that patients have a right to refuse life-support treatment it also has to recognize that patients also have a right to euthanasia. The proponents of euthanasia state that due to the fact that there exists no moral difference between euthanasia and patient deaths that result from the rejection of life support treatment, there should also be no legal difference between these two practices. Those who are against euthanasia do not agree with this view. They affirm that euthanasia is distinctly different from rejections of life support treatment. According to Sneddon (391), “there are well-understood and long-established differences between taking people’s lives and respecting their decisions when they refuse life support treatment.” Intrinsic moral intuitions have long established in the human psyche that there are significant distinctions between murdering a dying patient and allowing nature to take its course which is what actually takes place when a patient refuses treatment. According to Warnock (38), the supporters of euthanasia assert that “public discussions on how terminally ill patients are treated usually confuse two disconnected issues.” The first is the desire of the patient to not be subjected to invasive treatment if his or her physical condition deteriorates. The second concerns the right of the terminally ill patient to hasten death with the assistance of medical practitioners. What most people who are against euthanasia, particularly those who work in the medical sector neglect to say is that most cases of requested euthanasia consist of the patient requesting that physicians and nurses should not seek to revive him or her if he or she goes into cardiac arrest. Most anti-euthanasia advocates try to ensure that every time the argument about euthanasia reaches the public sphere, it concerns the fact of doctors willingly injecting lethal concoctions into their patients. This could make the public take a vocal stance against the whole concept of euthanasia without even really knowing what it entails. The truth is that in most of the cases in nations like the U.S., patients who are determined to die actually solicit for help from medical practitioners in spite of the illegality of the practice. If the United States actually legalized the practice of euthanasia, it would actually decrease the number of deaths which take place due to euthanasia being performed in an amateurish manner due to the legality issues. At present, most of the doctors who are approached by terminally ill patients to assist them in ending their own lives end up supplying drugs to the patients so that they can perform the deed themselves and at the time of their choosing. According to Amarasekara and Bagaric (405) “when the patients are successful in killing themselves, their doctors then state the cause of death in their death certificates as the actual illness they were seeking to escape instead of assisted suicide.” This is to stop the members of the public from probing into the patients sickness as well as history which would bring more pain for the deceased’s family members. Even though the doctors end up being able to cater to the needs of their distraught patients, their actions are still highly unprofessional. In addition, according to Battin (60), “if the patient administers the lethal dosage to themselves in an unsuitable manner, it could result in more pain for them and thus more trauma for the patient’s family members and friends.” A recognized authority on the practices of euthanasia, Ronald Dworkin, stated that, "terminally ill patients would actually benefit from assisted suicide if it were made legal and supported by the appropriate safeguards" (Boyle 56). It has been established that most terminally ill patients use medical means to end their lives when they wish to. Moreover, medical suicide is hard to execute. This is because the timing of the administration of the drugs and the dosage are aspects that have to be considered carefully if the patient is to accomplish it before being discovered. According to Pugno (222) “if the lethal drug cocktail is unsuccessful in bringing about death, which is the case particularly in cases where the patient consumes the drugs orally, there is greater trauma for the patient as well as caregivers. After such an occurrence, the terminally ill patients will even be more desperate to ensure that they do not fail in their second attempt and so will be more insistent on their medical caregivers. The existence of such circumstances actually forces some doctors who feel that helping such patients to end their lives will actually stop them from doing more irreversible harm on their bodies in the attempt to end their lives. The physicians, who have also been privy to the sufferings of their patients, will also be sympathetic to the pain that their patients have to endure on a daily basis and, needless to say, may feel that helping them to end their lives is an actual mercy. CONCLUSION Even though euthanasia can be wrongly used to euthanize patients who have not given their consent to it, it should not be entirely done away with as a viable option for patients who wish for it. What is clear from past researches on euthanasia is that “when physicians refuse to assist patients in their attempts to end their lives, they usually search for other physicians to help them to accomplish their goals” (Sneddon 403). Either way, the patients end up getting their wishes fulfilled. In addition, the patients, who by this time may be desperate, are usually not interested in finding the most responsible caregivers that they can find in order to end their own lives. When their physicians refuse to help them, they may actually be forced to turn to help from inexperienced caregivers who may have recommend even more painful ways to realize their goals. In cases like these, the suggestions about the evils of euthanasia are actually false and quite harmful to terminally ill patients. Works Cited Amarasekara, Kumar & Mirko Bagaric. (2004) “Moving From voluntary euthanasia to non-voluntary euthanasia: equality and compassion.” Ratio Juris, 17.3 (2004): 398-423. Print. Appel, Javier. “Neonatal Euthanasia: Why Require Parental Consent?” Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 6.4 (2009). Print. Battin, Margaret. “Right question, but not quite the right answer: whether there is a third alternative in choices about euthanasia in Alzheimer’s disease.” American Journal of Bioethics 7.4 (2007) 58-60. Print. Battin, Margaret. The Way we Die. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007. Print. Biggar, Nigel. Aiming to Kill: The Ethics of Suicide and Euthanasia. London: Pilgrim Press, 2004. Print. Boonin, David. What’s Wrong? : Applied Ethicists and their Critics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004. Print. Boyle, Joseph. “Medical Ethics and Double Effect: The Case of Terminal Sedation.” Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 25.1 (2004): 51-60. Print. Griffiths, John, Heleen Wyers & Maurice Adams. Euthanasia and Law in Europe. New York, Hart Publications, 2008. Print. Luper, Steven. The Philosophy of Death.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009. Print. Orfali, Robert. Death with Dignity: The Case for Legalizing Physician-Assisted Dying and Euthanasia. Minneapolis: Mill City Press, 2011. Print. Pugno, Perry. “One Physicians Perspective: Euthanasia and Physician-Assisted Suicide.” Health Care Analysis 12.3 (2004): 215-223. Print. Shaw, David. “Euthanasia and Eudaimonia.” Journal of Medical Ethics 35.9 (2009): 530-53. Print. Smith, Wesley. Forced exit: The slippery slope from assisted suicide to legalized murder. New York: Spence Publications, 2003. Print. Sneddon, Andrew. “Equality, Justice, and Paternalism: Recentreing Debate About Physician-Assisted Suicide.” Journal of Applied Philosophy 23.4 (2006): 387–404. Print. Warnock, Mary. Easeful Death: Is There a Case for Assisted Dying? Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008. Print. Read More