Hong Yen Pham
Pro-Euthanasia Under Certain Circumstances
“Your mother is at a vegetative state, which means she is most likely to lose her consciousness forever.” What would you do if you were going through this situation? Would you ask your doctor to perform euthanasia when the quality of life is no longer there? In my opinion, euthanasia should be allowed under certain circumstances versus the Pro-life group, who oppose euthanasia under any circumstances. In this essay, I will present the background of euthanasia, reasons against euthanasia and reasons support euthanasia, which is also my position.
Throughout the history, numbers of cases show a lot of encounters over euthanasia. The following is one of the turning cases that requires the law and public attention over the complicated issue. In a Journal of the American Society of Law, Medicine & Ethics, George Annas published “The Long Dying of Nancy Cruzan” in 1991 a story of twenty-year-old female Nancy Cruzan, who lost control of her car one day in January 1983. At the scene, she was found unconscious and stayed in that condition until the last day of her life. As Annas, J.D. M.P.H. composed in the article, Nancy’s parents augured that before the accident, she had told her friends that she would not want live in the vegetative state if something like that happen to her in the future. So base on her wish, Nancy’s parents asked the Court to grant the hospital the life-sustaining treatment ending as their daughter wished. However, the Court held against the request because it believed under Nancy’s conditions, according to medical experts she could stay alive for at least other thirty years. The State of Missouri refused to grant the family’s wish of withdrawing the artificial feeding and hydration equipment. The Supreme Court of Missouri said that they could not grant the request because “there was no clear and convincing evidence of Nancy’s desire to have life-sustaining treatment withdrawn under such circumstances” (Annas). The parents appealed this decision to the U.S. Supreme Court. At the end, The Supreme Court did not prohibit the Missouri Court from asking the family to meet specific requirements. The case went one for almost a decade until the court granted the death in 1990 (Annas). History has passed, but the case left us with the question of euthanasia.
Euthanasia is a complex subject because there is not a clear cut on whether the act is wrong or right. In other to take a position, one has to take into account of many considerations. In our society, as Ed W. Schmidt, M. D. President of Texas Medical Association stated “[The] technical advances have brought upon us questions of moral, social, technological, philosophical and legal import… The morality and ethics of ‘pulling the plug’ or ‘flipping the switch’ in the case of the terminally ill or incurable patients is inseparably related to many considerations” (Schmidt). Living in such an advanced technology and democratic society allows us to hold different values, morals and beliefs. Therefore, the act of euthanasia brings up hundred arguments because there are two ways to look at euthanasia: One side believes that euthanasia is murder; it might become too popular if it is legalized. The other side argues euthanasia is a basic human right; it is an act of compassion.
Cowboy films were popular when I was young. Sometimes a cowboy would get gut-shot in a shoot-out in a remote area, far from medical help. This is a terminal condition (perhaps an hour or two to live) accompanied by agonising pain. The gut-shot cowboy, unable to use his hands, would beg his partner to put him out of his agony. I often wondered what I would do if I were his partner. I think I would attempt to change his mind, but if he persisted with his plea I would try to calm his mind and prepare him to meet his death. And then, in this extreme situation, I think I would carry out his wishes.
In conclusion, euthanasia is an extreme sensitive subject. Therefore, I’ve take many considerations into account in order to show you the problem and my position; nonetheless I am sure that my arguments are not perfect. I hope anybody consider yourself as Pro-life supporter; try not to prevent people from receiving a Death with Dignity. In my opinion, I think that people with terminal illness should have the right to choose how to end their lives as they wish when they meet requirements. We have no right to tell how people live; therefore we have no right to prevent other people’s will. When it is necessary it helps to ensure a better society, a better life, as death is also part of life’s cycle. In addition, I want to leave you with a fruit of thought: why capital punishment is reinforced while euthanasia under certain circumstances is not allowed?
Works Cited
Revision
Hong Yen Pham
Euthanasia Under Certain Circumstances
“Your mother is at a vegetative state, which means she is most likely to lose her consciousness forever.” What would you do if you were going through this situation? Would you ask your doctor to perform euthanasia when the quality of life is no longer there? In my opinion, euthanasia should be allowed under certain circumstances versus the Pro-life group, who originally fought against abortion but as euthanasia was recognized, this group has been trying to oppose the act (euthanasia.com). In this essay, I will present the background of euthanasia, reasons against euthanasia and reasons support euthanasia, which is also my position.
Euthanasia is a complex subject because there is not a clear cut on whether the act is wrong or right. In other to take a position, one has to take into account of many considerations. In our society, as Ed W. Schmidt, M. D. President of Texas Medical Association stated “[The] technical advances have brought upon us questions of moral, social, technological, philosophical and legal import… The morality and ethics of ‘pulling the plug’ or ‘flipping the switch’ in the case of the terminally ill or incurable patients is inseparably related to many considerations” (Schmidt). Living in such an advanced technology and democratic society allows us to hold different values, morals and beliefs. Therefore, the act of euthanasia brings up hundred arguments because there are two ways to look at euthanasia: One side believes that euthanasia is unethical, and if it was legalized, it might become too popular if it is legalized. The other side argues euthanasia is a basic human right; it is an act of compassion. Different points of view make the subject more complex on numerous of cases in the history.
The following is one of the turning cases that require the law and public attention is Nancy Cruzan. In a Journal of the American Society of Law, Medicine & Ethics, George Annas published “The Long Dying of Nancy Cruzan” in 1991 a story of twenty-year-old female Nancy Cruzan, who lost control of her car one day in January 1983 and became unconscious. Based what she had told her friends that she would not want live in the vegetative state if something like that happen to her in the future, Nancy’s parents asked the Court to grant the hospital the life-sustaining treatment ending as their daughter wished ( Annas). However, the Court held against the request because it believed under Nancy’s conditions, she could stay alive for at least other thirty years. The parents appealed this decision to the U.S. Supreme Court. At the end, The Supreme Court did not prohibit the Missouri Court from asking the family to meet specific requirements. The case went one for almost a decade until the court granted the death in 1990 (Annas). What is your opinion on this case? Do you agree with the Court’s decision? I am going to tell you what group agrees with the Court.
The Pro- life group considers euthanasia is wrong under any circumstances because it is not ethical. This party has been fighting abortion for decades. As the euthanasia was performed in the United States, Pro-life lobbyist and religious group have formed the National Right to Life and the Catholic Conference to campaign against any doctor that prescribes lethal dose to the patient (Euthanasia.com). In the agreement with this group, William Reville describes his concern about euthanasia in the article, “Grappling with the rights and wrongs of euthanasia,” that euthanasia will become too popular. “In 2003, 1.2 per cent of all deaths in the Netherlands were physician-assisted suicides” (Reville). His second point is psychological pressures determine euthanasia might lead to a negative result. “…State of Oregon refuses to pay for an expensive new drug for an elderly patient…” (Reville). The feeling of burden towards family may drive patients to seek euthanasia. Reville fears that terminal patients seek ending their lives because of financial concern. The third reason makes Reville think that euthanasia is wrong because “It seems natural and right to me that we should support life at all stages.” I do not totally disagree with these arguments but they are not always true.
To address Pro-life group’s concerns, I want to cite what Mr. Reville, public awareness of science officer at UCC, also writes in the end of his article:
Cowboy films were popular when I was young. Sometimes a cowboy would get gut-shot in a shoot-out in a remote area, far from medical help. This is a terminal condition (perhaps an hour or two to live) accompanied by agonising pain. The gut-shot cowboy, unable to use his hands, would beg his partner to put him out of his agony. I often wondered what I would do if I were his partner. I think I would attempt to change his mind, but if he persisted with his plea I would try to calm his mind and prepare him to meet his death. And then, in this extreme situation, I think I would carry out his wishes.
The above excerpt indeed summarizes my thesis of this paper because in the case of individual and extreme, euthanasia should be permitted. When a person is suffering and the meaning of life isn’t there anymore, then in my opinion, euthanasia is the act of sympathy and compassion. As long as we are not trying to generalize the act, euthanasia will give needed patients peace. Other people who support euthanasia and I think that euthanasia is legally tolerable only if: the patient’s sorrow is unendurable, the condition is improvable, patient persistently and voluntarily requests euthanasia, and is fully aware of his/her condition (Reville) and at least twenty one and above is my own additional requirements. Meeting these rations will minimize the number of cases. This will prevent euthanasia to become too popular.
To further emphasize my pro- euthanasia analysis, I will tell you what I have been experienced the day my sister got the news from the doctor that her husband was diagnosed with brain cancer based on numerous tests. The illness made him become inadequate; he lost the ability to maintain balance afterward. He was lying on the bed for the total of four and half months dealing with pain, grief and semi-consciousness. My sister was going through one of the toughest times of her life when she was only twenty-six. Not only my brother, but also my sister and we felt the agony, the desire to be free from torture and cruelty of sickness. If God did not take him a couple months later, we would rather let him go in peace than to see him suffer for years. Our family would support him because we love him very much. The hospital expenses would never be the reason why we would want him to die early. The act of euthanasia can help patients go in peace when hopelessness is upon their poor souls. Even a small country in Asia, we recognize the benefits of euthanasia.
The controversy of euthanasia is acknowledged nationally and internationally. For the first time in the world’s history, in 1995 Australia’s Northern Territory approved a euthanasia bill. In 1998 State of Oregon legalized assisted suicide, and followed by the State of Washington (History of Euthanasia). Death with Dignity Act “allows terminally-ill Oregonians to end their lives through the voluntary self-administration of lethal medications, expressly prescribed by physicians for that purpose” (Oregon.gov). There are specific requirements in order to receive physician-assistance suicide. According to Oregon State website, the patient has to over 18 years of age or older, diagnosed with a terminal illness that will lead to death within six months. According to the Death with Dignity National Center, patients are well informed and check on good healthcare, financial stability, as well as mental stability.
In my opinion, I think that people with terminal illness should have the right to choose how to end their lives as they wish when they meet requirements. We have no right to tell how people live; therefore we have no right to prevent other people’s will. I hope anyone consider yourself as Pro-life do not prevent people from receiving a Death with Dignity. When it is necessary it helps to ensure a better society, a better life, as death is also part of life’s cycle. In addition, I want to leave you with another thought: why capital punishment is reinforced while innocent people only ask for a good death is allowed.
History of Euthanasia." Euthanasia.com. Web. 06 Dec. 2011.
I tried to indent the paragraph and the excerpt but it did not work when I posted here.
ReplyDeleteI revised my paper
ReplyDelete