The acceptance of active euthanasia as a medical practice enables individuals to pass away peacefully and without pain, while upholding their dignity. Euthanasia includes different types, such as assisted suicide or mercy killing. The term “active euthanasia” typically denotes a particular form where deliberate measures are taken to bring about the patient’s demise, regardless of their consent.
When euthanasia is performed involuntarily, it is often because the patient cannot express their desire to prolong their life artificially. The physician must then decide to end the patient’s life because they believe it is justified due to the patient’s current state of suffering.
In the United States, active euthanasia is generally illegal; however, Oregon has an exception called the Death with Dignity Act. This act allows terminally-ill adults in Oregon to receive prescriptions from their physicians for self-administered lethal doses of medication.
It is widely believed in the United States that ending the life of a conscious and communicative person, even if they are suffering from diseases like Lou Gehrig’s disease, cancer, or multiple sclerosis, is morally unacceptable.
The viewpoints of the most steadfast opponents of euthanasia may experience a substantial transformation upon encountering a comprehensive analysis of the facts. In his article “A Time to Die,” Michael Petrou offers a compelling portrayal that underscores the importance of active euthanasia. Petrou recounts the concluding stage in the life of Hans Knottenbelt, an esteemed spouse and parent living in the Netherlands, where euthanasia is not only legally permissible but also widely accepted. The Netherlands has strict regulations concerning individuals’ autonomy over their own end-of-life choices.
According to the guidelines in the Netherlands, euthanasia can only be considered if specific conditions are met. These conditions include the patient experiencing unbearable pain and being conscious, as well as their voluntary request for death. Additionally, the patient must have been provided with alternatives and given enough time to consider them. It is crucial that there are no other viable solutions available and that the patient’s death does not cause unnecessary suffering to others. The decision for euthanasia should involve multiple individuals, with only a doctor authorized to perform the procedure. Making the choice to terminate a patient’s life necessitates careful deliberation (Euthanasia in the Netherlands).
Later in his life, he received the diagnosis of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), also known as Lou Gehrig’s disease. This medical condition was perceived as a death sentence by him and his family because it progressively damages the nerves responsible for muscle control. They were aware that eventually he would experience complete paralysis, making it impossible to walk, speak, or even swallow. Ultimately, his condition would deteriorate to the extent that breathing became a challenge and ultimately led to suffocation.
Knottenbelt and his family were terrified by the disease, as it did not impair his mental capacity. He would be fully conscious of his decline towards death (Petrou 22). Eventually, he decided that euthanasia was the only logical option. The article did not provide the doctor’s name, but the doctor visited Knottenbelt at home and offered him an escape from the disease.
Knottenbelt peacefully passed away after receiving an anesthetic and a drug to stop his heart. His daughter, in Petrou’s article, describes this as a beautiful moment in her life. If Knottenbelt had lived in any of the forty-nine American states where euthanasia is illegal, his death would not have been as peaceful. His daughter shares how her father, who had Lou Gehrig’s disease, would wake up in the evenings feeling scared.
According to Petrou (22), he was not scared of dying, but rather scared of suffocation and the way he would die. Without the option to peacefully end his life, Knottenbelt’s fears could have become a reality. It is likely that he would have woken up in the middle of the night and discovered his airway blocked with fluids, leading him to panic and urgently ring the bell beside his bed to alert his family for help. Unfortunately, in this situation, help would either arrive too late or be unable to clear his windpipe.
Knottenbelt faced a harrowing death, causing immense suffering for both him and the unfortunate family member who tried to assist him. They had to witness his desperate gasps for air until his final breath. Frank Collins, from Baruch College, discusses in his essay “To die or not to die” another instance where active euthanasia should be considered. Collins recounts the heartbreaking tale of Chantal Sebire, a French woman.
Sebire suffered from Esthesioneuroblastoma, a rare cancer affecting the nasal sinuses. This agonizing condition not only caused severe disfigurement but also permanent loss of vision, smell, and taste. Sebire’s plea for assisted dying was dismissed by the high court in Dijon, France. Tragically, just two days after the court’s decision, Sebire took her own life by intentionally overdosing on barbiturates.
Sebire was a mother of three and a former school teacher. Her appearance in a French television news interview, where she advocated for the right to a peaceful departure, garnered a strong sympathy response. The press featured before-and-after pictures of Sebire, showing her severely deformed face, and shared her account of frightened children who were scared off by her appearance. Sebire disclosed that she was diagnosed with esthesioneuroblastoma, a rare malignant tumor in the nasal cavity, in 2002, and described the excruciating suffering it caused her. She stated that she lost her sense of smell and taste in 2000, and completely lost her sight in October 2007. In the interview, she expressed that no animal would be subjected to the same suffering she endured, urging President Nicolas Sarkozy to intervene and grant her request for assistance. Despite cases like Sebire’s and Knottenbelt’s, where it would seem difficult to argue against the option for patients to die with dignity, a majority of American lawmakers do exactly that.
Those against euthanasia claim that establishing a legal framework for active euthanasia would be problematic and susceptible to misuse. They argue that it would be challenging for authorities to ensure individuals are held responsible, thus compromising the efficacy of any regulations. On the other hand, supporters of euthanasia frequently propose personal integrity as a remedy for this concern (“Should Euthanasia” 26).
Supporters of the euthanasia ban may not have taken into account the well-regulated system in Oregon. The “Death with Dignity Act” in Oregon establishes precise criteria to prevent any abuse of euthanasia. According to this law, patients must meet the following conditions: 1) be at least 18 years old, 2) reside in Oregon, 3) possess the capacity to make and express healthcare decisions, and 4) have a terminal illness expected to result in death within six (6) months.
In accordance with the DWDA, doctors must assess whether patients meet the requirements for assisted suicide. The act specifies that physicians can administer lethal medication solely to individuals who are terminally ill, have a life expectancy of under six months, have sought a second medical opinion, have formally requested lethal medication three times, and do not exhibit signs of mental illness. While not flawless, this system seems sufficiently effective to be implemented and permit patients such as Hans Knottenbelt to evade agonizing and distressing deaths.
Opponents of the Death With Dignity Act, such as John Ashcroft, a former attorney general, claim that the law violates the Controlled Substances Act because it allows doctors to prescribe drugs without a “legitimate medical purpose” (source: “Death” 33). However, this argument is flawed and does not explain why Oregon doctors’ prescribed drugs do not serve a “legitimate medical purpose.” It is puzzling to consider what could be more “legitimate” than saving someone from a distressing death like Hans Knottenbelt experienced. In certain strict circumstances, active euthanasia should be allowed. It is the most suitable choice when an individual is faced with an imminent and painful demise, similar to Knottenbelt and Sebire.
Works cited:
The Economist’s “Death with dignity,” Trustee’s “Oregon’s Death with Dignity Act debated,” and Michael Petrou’s article “A Time to Die” from Maclean’s, along with the IPA Review’s “Should Euthanasia Be Legal” all delve into the topic of euthanasia. Oregon State provides information on their Death with Dignity Act through their website, while the International Task Force website focuses on euthanasia in the Netherlands. Frank Collins’ essay titled “To Die or Not to Die: Rethinking the Morality of Voluntary Euthanasia” is available on www.baruch.cuny.edu (Baruch College).
Dec. 2008. Web. 12 Dec. 2010. https://baruch.cuny.edu/documents/edu/facultyhandbook/frankcollinsentryundergraduatewinner.pdf.
“Cancer Victim Chantal Sebire Found Dead at Home | The Daily Telegraph.” The Daily Telegraph | Breaking News, Videos and Pictures from Sydney, NSW, Australia and the World | DailyTelegraph. Web. 12 Dec. 2010.http://au.dailytelegraph.com/news/world/cancer-victim-chantal-sebire-found-dead-at-home/story-e6frev00-1111115844317.
