Jane Doe was recently diagnosed with lung cancer.
Despite her doctors initially giving her a six-month life expectancy, Jane’s prognosis is now deemed hopeless as her cancer has progressed to an advanced stage. Consequently, Jane is conscious of her gradual deterioration in self-care capabilities.
The contemplation of euthanasia as a way to maintain her self-esteem arises from the prospect of being in a vegetative state. The advantages of legalizing euthanasia include lowering government expenses, empowering individuals to have autonomy over their lives, and alleviating patient agony. Euthanasia refers to purposely ending someone’s life out of compassion or empathy.
Euthanasia includes different actions, such as the choice to not provide life support and directly causing death through a lethal injection. It is crucial to differentiate euthanasia from suicide, which occurs when someone intentionally ends their own life, often due to depression.
Euthanasia, which is a type of medically assisted death, is given to terminally ill patients who cannot recover and are either competent or self-sufficient. It should be emphasized that euthanasia should not be mistaken for DNR (do not resuscitate) as these terms have different definitions in the medical field.
Patients can seek a “do not resuscitate” (DNR) directive to decline cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) in the event of sudden cessation of breathing. It is crucial to distinguish between euthanasia and mercy killing, as they are commonly confused. Euthanasia pertains to medical professionals, whereas non-medical individuals may carry out mercy killing. The origins of euthanasia trace back to ancient Greece.
“Physicians in ancient Greece, similar to other itinerant craftsmen, lacked the necessary skills to alleviate the suffering of individuals seeking their aid. Frequently, it appears that such individuals saw suicide as a way to escape the agony of illness and the torment that accompanied death” (Robert F. Weir).
Ancient Greek physicians were inadequate in relieving patients’ pain and often led them to consider suicide as an escape from illness and its accompanying torment (Robert F. Weir).
Throughout history, suicide has been viewed as a form of self-medication. The ancient Greeks specifically emphasized the voluntary nature of this act and emphasized that it could be acceptable if done for legitimate reasons, such as in cases of terminal illness.
Physicians in around 400 B.C. embraced the Hippocratic Oath, a set of guidelines that forbade them from providing lethal drugs upon request or giving advice regarding such actions. They committed to practicing medicine with honesty and integrity.
Euthanasia has been viewed as immoral and unfair since before the advent of technology. This controversial topic has a long history, with the United States first banning euthanasia in New York in 1828, declaring it illegal.
Following New York’s lead, numerous states implemented legislation to prohibit assisting suicide in response to the court decision. In 1870, the United States issued its initial official statement endorsing euthanasia.
Samuel Williams, a non-physician, advocated for the use of analgesic pain relievers in euthanasia. He believed that people experiencing intense pain should have the option to alleviate it through their preferred means.
In 1915, a physician encountered a dilemma: whether to allow a condition to progress naturally or try surgery that might not yield significant results. Dr.
Dr. Haiselden encountered a child who faced multiple birth defects. In his expertise, he determined that even with surgical intervention, the child’s underlying birth complications would ultimately result in death. Consequently, he opted to withhold surgery, allowing nature to take its course and complete the flawed process.During the year 1930, support for euthanasia increased significantly. By 1937, about 45% of Americans agreed that euthanasia should be allowed for babies born with defects. The viewpoint on euthanasia has undergone a notable shift over time, moving from limited backing to widespread endorsement. Legalizing euthanasia would eventually result in decreased healthcare expenses for patients approaching the end of their lives.
An article reveals that government spending on end-of-life care is significant, with Medicare alone dedicating $55 billion for doctor and hospital bills of patients during their last two months of life. Additionally, in 2009, medical expenses exceeding $50 billion were allocated to patients who died within two months.
According to cbsnews.com, medical expenses exceed the average spent on education and national security. It is estimated that around 20-30% of these medical expenses may be avoidable. Despite allocating billions towards prolonging natural death, there is no evidence supporting its effectiveness.
Despite going through multiple doctor visits, refilling prescription bottles, and undergoing numerous surgeries, the patient ultimately dies. It becomes evident that attempting to prolong inevitable deaths is pointless. Introducing euthanasia would effectively decrease government expenditure while addressing the fact that a large number of terminally ill patients experience immense pain.
Symptoms of suffering include vomiting, breathlessness, diarrhea, and paralysis. In the court declaration for the New York Case of “Jane Doe”, it was disclosed that she has a sizable tumor in her back which tightly wraps around her right carotid artery. As a result, her esophagus has collapsed and her voice box has been invaded, leading to a notable deterioration in her ability to swallow. Currently, she can only consume extremely small quantities of very thin liquids. Additionally, the cancer has spread to her plural cavity, resulting in pain when yawning or coughing.
In July 1994, I had a feeding tube implanted that has resulted in significant health problems…
Despite taking multiple medications, I am unable to reduce my pain to a comfortable level without compromising my alertness.
My doctors have confirmed that I am currently in the final stage of the illness…
Robert Weir voices his wish for open discussions with his doctor regarding the use of prescribed medications to expedite his death when the pain and agony inflicted by his cancer becomes insufferable. He cites “Jane Doe” as an illustrative case of someone who, similar to numerous others, endures immense suffering from their ailments with no prospect of amelioration.
A survey conducted by euthanasia.com in 2002 revealed that 26% of respondents were worried about inadequate pain relief. These individuals wished for help to terminate their lives because they believed their pain was untreatable. The legalization of euthanasia provides a solution for terminally ill patients to relieve their distress.
Every individual has the inherent right to life and autonomy in their decision-making. Matters pertaining to an individual’s existence and mortality are personal affairs that lie beyond the jurisdiction of the government.
Although many patients want to, legal barriers prevent them from ending their lives. Certain individuals with terminal illnesses see death as a natural occurrence and search for alternative ways to die. A prominent example is the Sue Rodriguez case in British Columbia, involving a well-known 42-year-old woman living there.
Ms. Rodriguez, who is married and has an 8-year-old son, has been diagnosed with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), a disease that usually leads to a life expectancy of two to 14 months. Regrettably, her condition is deteriorating quickly and she will soon require assistance for fundamental activities such as swallowing, speaking, walking, and general body movement.
Despite her awareness of her condition and the progression of her illness, Mrs. Rodriguez acknowledges that she will eventually lose the ability to breathe without a respirator, eat without a gastrostomy tube, and be bedridden. Her goal is to retain control over the circumstances, timing, and method of her death while also striving to find happiness in life for as long as possible. It should be noted that she will need assistance to end her own life due to physical limitations.
Ms. Rodriguez, similar to other individuals with incurable illnesses, wishes for a qualified medical professional’s consent to assist her in finding a method to peacefully conclude her life based on her own preferences (Robert Weir). Mrs. Rodriguez shares the commonality of receiving a diagnosis of an untreatable condition.
Desiring autonomy and the ability to dictate her own fate, she is aware that her time is approaching and wishes to pass away in a manner of her choosing. As per William Barth’s court declaration in the New York Case, he indicated that his first major illness related to AIDS occurred in 1992 when he received a diagnosis for a Kaposi’s sarcoma skin lesion.
After receiving radiation and chemotherapy, I sought treatment for this cancer.
In September 1993, I received a diagnosis of cytomegalovirus (CMV) affecting my stomach and colon. This led to severe symptoms such as intense diarrhea, fevers, and wasting. Later in February 1994, I was diagnosed with microsporidiosis, an incurable parasitic infection.
… Additionally, I contracted pneumonia, which was associated with AIDS and happened concurrently.
The infusion therapy for pneumonia was so toxic that I vomited after every infusion.
In March 1994, a diagnosis of cryptosporidiosis was made, causing severe diarrhea with up to 20 stools per day, intense abdominal pain, nausea, and significant weight loss. Multiple medical treatments have been undergone, each having their own harmful side effects.
. Although I have put up with a few nightly intravenous feedings, I am not willing to continue doing so for a long time…
.There are no cures, I understand…
The text emphasizes the plea of individuals such as Robert Weir and Barth who desire access to drugs to expedite their death as a result of their overwhelming pain and distress. These individuals, along with others, represent a larger collective that aims to assert their right to determine when they have reached their limit.
Robert Weir argues that legalizing euthanasia grants patients the autonomy to determine when they wish to terminate their lives. Nonetheless, this presents ethical dilemmas as it entails physicians assuming responsibility for ending a patient’s life. Weir contends that, from a normative perspective, doctors should refrain from inflicting harm or participating in any manner that results in their patients’ ultimate harm, including death.
Although it is commonly believed that doctors should not be accountable for patient deaths, they still have an obligation to honor a patient’s choices. If a person chooses euthanasia as their preferred end-of-life method, doctors must not interfere but instead prioritize the patient’s well-being and provide pain relief as per the patient’s wishes.
It is important for healthcare providers to be honest with patients regarding their likelihood of recovery. Instead, they should face the truth about death and work towards enhancing end-of-life experiences. Similar to Jane, many individuals are faced with the decision of sacrificing independence due to illness or accepting the unavoidable reality of death and selecting a dignified conclusion. In the United States, substantial resources have been dedicated to prolonging life through advanced medical treatment.
The reality is that death is an inevitable part of our existence. The question arises: how should individuals facing a terminal illness diagnosis navigate this difficult situation? Should they endure additional suffering as they desperately hold on to the remaining moments of their lives? Regrettably, society often neglects to provide adequate support for those who are terminally ill. Once they enter a stage close to death, we tend to overlook their struggles, viewing death as something that naturally occurs. Tragically, this sense of isolation and burden weighs heavily upon them.
It is essential for humanity to provide individuals with the option of deciding whether they want to terminate their own lives.
