Xiaorui (Miranda) Tong
Professor Jones
GWRT 103
11/15/2010
Death with Dignity:
Is it an act of humanity? Or is it an act of Crime?
Search the words "death with dignity", an organization called Final Exit Network appears on top of Google search. According to the organization, the registration fee costs fifty dollars, and the privileges of membership include helps from the Exit Guides that provide peaceful, dignified release from intolerable pain and suffering (Bluestein). In February, 2009, four members of Final Exit Network were arrested and charged with the assisted suicide of fifty-eight years old John Celmer at Atlanta (Bluestein). Apparently, authorities call it an act of crime. But is it really a crime? Or is it an invaluable and humane service in the sometimes inhumane society? Oregon passed the Measure 16 of Death with Dignity Act that allows terminally ill person to free themselves from the burden and suffering of pain under certain restrictions (Woodward). Physician assisted suicide complies with the Death with Dignity Act should not be considered a crime for moral, social, and legal reasons.
For the legal perspective, doctor assisted suicide is not a crime because every human being has a fundamental right of choice. The simple word "suicide" distinguishes itself from "murder". A person commits suicide only when he or she lost all hope in the world, and he or she is destined to die regardless of what medical help he or she seeks. According to Judge Reinhardt of the Ninth Circuit:
The decision how and when to die is one of the 'most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime', a choice 'central to personal dignity and autonomy'. A competent terminally ill adult...has a strong liberty interest in choosing a dignified and human death rather than being reduced at the end of his existence to a childlike state of helplessness, diapered, sedated, and incontinent. How a person dies not only determines the nature of the final period of his existence, but in many cases the enduring memories held by those who love him(Levin).
Further more, the prevention of doctor assisted suicide violates individual's religious freedom. It is up to the patient to decide and imagine his or her after life after death. The government has no reason to impose its religious belief that "suicide is a sin." The government has no right to keep people suffering from intolerable pain if the patients wish to break free; it would be an act of government mandated suffering. Shouldn’t government reflect the best interest of its citizens? Keep in mind that the best interest of the suicical patients is to free themselves from physical and emotional burdens. It is their decision; the government has no right to impose their belief that "suicide is a sin". Suicide is not a crime. Therefore, doctor assisted suicide should not be a crime either.
If the government rules that suicide is not a crime, then there is no reason to rule doctor assisted suicide a crime. According to the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Cruzan vs. Director, Missouri Dept. Of Health, "individuals have a right to refuse artificial, medical provisions of life-sustaining food, water, and respiration" (Levin). Neither suicide nor attempted suicide is criminalized anywhere in the United States or in many other nations. Then why is assisted suicide a crime considering the patients are still the ones who perform the last act, just with materials (medicines) provided by others? Doctor assisted suicide is not euthanasia. In euthanasia, doctors are the ones who intentionally inject chemicals to patients to end patients' lives, but in doctor assisted suicide, patients are the ones who do the injection (Marker). Compare an individual who commit suicide with a plastic bag he brought from a supermarket and an individual commit suicide with a medicine he received from a doctor (doctor assisted suicide), the real difference is the tools they used. Why is the first act of suicide not persecuted while the second act of suicide is a crime? Doctor assisted suicide is still a suicide committed by patients, just with medicines provided from doctors. But a patient can end his or her life with tools other than medicines provided by doctors. Then why is suicide with a plastic bag not a crime while suicide with doctor-provided-medicine a crime?
For moral reason, doctor assisted suicide is not a crime because it is an act of humanity. Patients can be saved from the tremendous pain and suffering which result in their agonized lives and death. When the doctor is absolutely positive about the patients' final days, there is no reasons patients should suffer six months of vomiting, coughing, enduring pain spasms and psychological sufferings while a mean of relieving excruciating pain is possible. In the case of John Celmer's assisted suicide, it became apparent that John had an intolerably long and difficult life before his assisted suicide. He endured surgery and radiation to rid him of oral cancer which left him with a deteriorating jaw that required more surgery in addition to his constant pain from an arthritic hip (Bluestein). Doctor assisted suicide actually saved him, not destroyed him like his diseases did. The states' interest in preserving life is absolutely unnecessary and violates morality when the patient is terminal and wishes to relieve excruciating pain. Additionally, the patents, as well as their families, suffer psychologically during the period of death notification and actual death. Of course, there are terminally ill patients who chose to spend the rest of their lives with beloved families; they're a whole different story. But keep in mind that there are also terminally ill patients who lost hope and joy in life and who suffer from aloneness without family or friend. They’re in despair over their physical or emotional conditions. Doctor assisted suicide is not a crime; it is an act of humanity that save patients from both physical and emotional sufferings.
For the social reasons, doctor assisted suicide should not be considered a crime because it is actually beneficial to the society. A substantial amount of health care costs and vital organs can be saved from those who prefer to be dead. More money and more doctor attention can be directed at those who can be saved. In 2008, about 97,000 people in the United States are waiting for a suitable organ transplant (Czajkowski). It is certainly rational to put the needs of the living ahead of the needs of those who prefer dying. Studies show that an estimate of about 27% of Medicare's annual $327 billion budget goes to care for patients in their final years of life (Appleby). This statistic is not surprising at all, considering Medicare's demographics to be most patients over 65, who already experienced most in life, and presumably, ready to die.
Opponents of doctor-assisted suicide such as the Catholic Church believe that doctor assisted suicide is immoral and devalues human life. But why should it be immoral when the "patients are no longer able to pursue liberty or happiness and do not wish to pursue life"(Levin)? Again, doctor assisted suicide is an act of humanity; it is not a crime. Other opponents worry the patients change their mind about will to live. However, the Death in Dignity Act requires a fifteen day waiting period, providing a sufficient safeguard against the "potential ambivalence and reversibility of an expressed desire to die"(Balch). Additionally, since it still falls into the category of "suicide", there is no reason "suicide" is a crime.
Other opponents argue that doctor assisted suicide gives doctors too much powers. In fact, doctor assisted suicide has strict restrictions. Oregon's Measure 16 of Death with Dignity Act placed three major limits on doctor assisted suicide. The legislation includes: first, such request is voluntary and informed; secondly, the person is capable of making and communicating health care decisions; and thirdly, the person's attending physician and a consulting physician have determined the person to be suffering from the terminal diseases that will result in death within six months (Levin). These limitations reduced the abuse of power by doctors.
Doctor assisted suicide complies with Oregon's Measure 16 of Death with Dignity Act should not be considered a crime for legal, moral, and social reasons. If suicide is not crime, then there is no reason to consider doctor assisted suicide a crime. It is an act of humanity, not to mention the amount of its benefits to the society. Only a small percentage of incurable patients wish to commit suicide (Brown); and the Death with Dignity Act and its restrictions limit that number to an even smaller percentage. It's not a big deal, yet the government continue to find fault within its legal system by dividing "suicide" into "suicide" and "doctor assisted suicide". What does it really reflect, however, is the government's desire to rule "suicide" an act of crime. Or, what does it really reflects is the society's tendency to impose the majority of patients' beliefs to the minority of patients. But what about the small percentage of patients who wish to free from burden and suffering? What if they lost all hope in life? What if they are alone in this world without families or friends? Is it fair to deny their right to heaven just because the majority of patients desire life? Doctor assisted suicide is a right for a minority of patients. Just like the minority of citizens who fight for equality, liberty, and justice, these minority of patients deserve to fight for their right to freedom, to heaven, and to a after-life that is better, happier, worthier of living. The government has no right to call their act of chasing freedom a crime.
Work Cited
Appleby, Julie. "Debate Surrounds End-of-life Health Care Costs",
USA Today News, Abc News, Fannett Co. Inc. Oct 19
2006, http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/health/2006-10-18-end-of-life-costs_x.htm
Balch, Burke J. "Terminally ill often change their minds about will
to live, Study Shows", NRLC Department of Medical Ethics,
nrlc.org. Nov, 15, 2010.
http://www.nrlc.org/news/1999/NRL999/termill.html
Bluestein, Greg. “Four Arrested for Assisted Suicide Crimes”,
SFGate.com, Hearst
Communications Inc, Hearst Newspaper, February 27, 2009,
http://articles.sfgate.com/2009-02-27/news/17190351_1_jerry-dincin-derek-humphry-final-exit-network
Brown, JH. "Is it normal for Terminally Ill Patients to Desire
Death?", The American Journal of Psychiatry, James Madision
University, Am J Psychiatry 1986;
143; 208-211, American Psychiatric Association,
http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/abstract/143/2/208
Levin, Martin. "Physician-assisted Suicide: Legality and Morality",
Levin Papantonio Thomas Mitchell Rafferty & Proctor, P.A.
Legal Resource,
http://www.levinlaw.com/Articles/FirmArticle-Physician-Assisted-Suicide.php
Marker, Rita L. “Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide: Frequently Asked
Questions”, International TaskForce.org, Nov 16. 2010,
http://www.internationaltaskforce.org/faq.htm
Woodward, Curt. "Wash. Voters Approve Assisted Suicide
Initiative", the Seattle Times, The Seattle Times Company, Local
News, Tuesday, November4, 2010.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2008352565_apwaassistedsuicide2ndldwritethru.html
This work, for which I received, no unauthorized assistance, complies with the JMU Honor Code. Miranda Tong
