Assisted Suicide

Euthanasia Policies Should Be Enacted in all of the United States.

By: Emonie Sealey

Euthanasia is the practice of an intentional and painless death of people who are facing a terminal and painful illness. The practice of Euthanasia is a very controversial topic around the world and is not very supported in many countries, one of the main ones being the United States. Many people believe that the debate on Euthanasia is as simple as the right to die and the consequences of assisted suicide but the conversation should be way deeper than that. We have to look into the local laws and how they impact this decision, as well as the tactics used. However, that is not to say that we should not take into consideration the right to die and how a person would like to end their life. Who are we to say that someone deserves to suffer until they meet their painful end? Euthanasia policies should be enacted in the United States because if a person is terminally ill, they should be the one to decide how they want to exit this earth.


Based on The School of Medicine in Missouri’s article on Euthanasia, there are three main types of Euthanasia that are practiced around the world. The first one is voluntary euthanasia, where the practice is fully consensual. The next is non-voluntary, where the patient is not able to consent due to their current state, yet the person most appropriate to make the call is able to make the decision. The final type of euthanasia is involuntary where the patient is able to make the decision but does not. This could be due to the fact that they were not ready to die, or that they were not asked if they wanted to go through with the procedure, in most cases, this is considered murder. The term ‘Assisted Suicide’ has taken on multiple definitions throughout its time as a term but according to ‘Medical News Today’ the definition of assisted suicide is “Intentionally helping a person commit suicide by providing drugs for self-administration, at that person’s voluntary and competent request”(Brazier, 2018). This now brings up the topic of the one of the large disputes of the controversy of the difference between euthanasia and the right to die and that it the ethics of this practice. Many people believe that allowing something of this sort should be illegal due to the fact that it can lead to ways of hospitals using it in cases where it is not needed. An article from the American Medical Association (AMA) explains that they believe the ethics of euthanasia are questionable and that it “would do more harm than good” because it compromises the doctor’s role as a healer for the people who are sick. People believe that hospitals use euthanasia because they no longer want to help the patients, not because there is nothing else that can be done for them. However, there are many precautions and ordeals that are needed before pursuing the procedure. If someone is truly so sick and in pain that they decide they can no longer go on, then it should be their choice whether or not they want to fight as long as they can, or have control over their death. If they want to say goodbye to the people that they love the most and no longer have to suffer. Euthanasia provides this choice, which makes it an ethical decision to many.


It is a Constitutional right to refuse medical treatment, meaning that if someone was sick enough and they believed that their medicine was not helping, but only making their condition worse, they are allowed to stop taking it. People who are terminally ill and know that there is nothing else that can be done for them but suffer should be able to decide that they are ready to end that pain. As of now, in all fifty states in the US, euthanasia is illegal. Right now, it is illegal for people with terminal, painful illness to end their lives on their own terms. If we do not do something soon, more people are going to have long agonizing deaths and will not be able to go to their final resting places in the peace that they deserve. Euthanasia gives people the chance to pass away in the comfort that they will be able to say goodbye to the people that they love and come to terms with their deaths. Death can be hard, for everyone involved but with euthanasia, they can have a bit more comfort in what's to come.


In Defense of Euthanasia and the Right to Die

By Adam Canady

Euthanasia, also sometimes known as Physcican assisted suicide, is the medical process of speeding up a patient's death. Usually, the patient is one who has fallen terminally ill and has no chance at surviving.

Over the years since it’s initial proposal, there has been a widespread ethical debate on the application of Euthanasia in the medical field. Many disagree with the process, but despite the criticisms regarding euthansia, medically assisted suicide should fall within the rights of man; with proper regulations and preservation of the founding morals, euthanasia could act as the yearned for release for many living a life of suffering. No person, struggling mentally or physically, should be burdened with an existence filled only with unrelenting tenderness.

One view that this proposal is completely disconnected from is the use of involuntary euthanasia. This is the medical practice of ending a patient's life without their consent, or making the decision for them when they are incapable of doing so. This is something often brought up by the side of debates that argues against euthanasia. However, the two couldn’t be more different. Actual euthanasia, which’s use can be found in countries like the Netherlands, is a much less crude and much more consenual process.

First, the patient's physical pain has to be relentless and unbearable. Their request is deeply considered by their assigned physician, who then consults another physician on the situation. It is made sure that there are absolutely no other alternatives to easen the patient's strain before the careful final step is taken. One of the most popular cases of euthanasia being applied can be found in Marieke Vervoot. Vervoot had been living with reflex sympathetic dystrophy, a disease that over time degenerated the muscles in her spine and caused her an immense amount of torment throughout her life. Vervoot went on to live a fulfilling life, one in which she won four paralympic medals during her time representing Belgium as a wheelchair sprinter, including one gold medal in 2012. (Keh, 2019) But, the constant discomfort she experienced everyday was simply too much. During an interview with the New York Times, she stated: “I’m looking forward to it. Looking forward finally to rest my mind, finally have no pain.” Life is beautiful, but to subject somebody to a life of suffering against their will should be considered wrong by all.

A more touchy subject within the realm of euthanasia is its use with patients who are severly mentally ill rather than physically. As said earlier in the paper, euthanasia is a process reserved to those who are capable of making the decision themselves, and with a clear mind. Thus, people with conditions such as schizophrenia or multi-personality disorder should and would be excluded from this avenue of coping with their illness.

Adam Maier-Clayton was 27 when he took his own life in the spring of 2017. In life, Maier-Clayton was a fierce advocate for euthanasia for the mentally ill, and struggled with anxiety, obssessive compulsive disorder, and somatic symptom disorder. He spoke about how treatments, both ethical and chemical, had failed in treating his condition. (Picard, 2017) He may not have been physically ill, but the torment he experienced in life should hold just as much weight as the situation of someone such as Vervoot.

Maier-Clayton’s call for a medically assisted death hindered no results, and he ended up taking his own life. Adam shouldn’t have had to leave our Earth this way, he should have been helped. A professional avenue is something that should have been accessible for him. There are numerous people, both living and dead, that faced the same reality as Maier-Clayton, and these people’s free-will should not be denied.

Furthermore, the safety of those going through such considerable mental trauma is something that legalized euthanasia will help with. Suicide, unfortuanetly, is something that has been happening and will continue to happen for a very, very long time. People who take these matters into their own hands often use crude and inhumane methods, such as the use of a firearm or jumping from large heights. In the worst case scenario, these methods do not work, and the person is subjected to an even worse life than they had been living before. The smoothness and precision of euthanasia enables these people to make their next step in an ethical and formal manner.

A point that cannot be further stressed is that before euthanasia is to be gone through with, all possible treatments must have been explored. This is something that is made sure of when medical euthanasia is completed, and should be upheld in all future scenarios. In the case of Maier-Clayton, things like therapy, medication, and even experimental treatments like Ketamine had all been tried. Euthansia, in essence, is the true final step.


The largest argument against euthanasia takes form in the ‘slippery slope’ claim. There are those who believe that if euthansia is legalized, its foundations will crumble as time goes on and the corporatism of the healthcare system seeps its way into the process. They fear that euthanasia will become involuntary, mostly because of companies trying to cut costs. These concerns are absolutely legitimate, and ones that both the context and origins are completely understandable. After upwards of twenty years of research being conducted in the Netherlands, the evidence of the ‘slippery slope’ is nonexistent. The use of euthanasia has always had the consent of the patient themselves, and the amount of times its been used hasn’t gone upward as the years of its legalization go on. (Rietjens, 2009) Death is the final step, the ultimate ascent into nothingness, and one that demands utmost seriousness when it is discussed. The universalness of death, and the fact that it applies to everyone, is why I’m sure that the founding morals of etuhanasia will be protected throughout its lifetime.



Euthanasia Should Not Be Enacted.

By Briana Rodriguez

Euthanasia, the act of painlessly killing a patient who suffers from an incurable disease or coma, is often proposed as the last possible solution. Despite it giving the patient, or in most cases, their caretakers a choice— the impact of choice and decision often has negative consequences. It is illegal in most countries for a reason. Euthanasia should not be enacted since it makes room for insurance loopholes, deteriorates the mental health of physicians, and in most cases, is not used in situations where assisted suicide is the only option.


In most countries, insurance is a right provided to everyone given they have access to it. It covers a lot of procedures, and when it comes to healthcare, the majority of it is out of most people’s price range. The thing is, even though insurance companies exist to provide financial relief, they also prefer the cheaper way of things. It has become a common occurrence that insurance companies will offer euthanasia before they offer help on a disease that looks to be unrecoverable. According to Marker of the Patients Rights Council, “Perhaps one of the most important developments in recent years is the increasing emphasis placed on health care providers to contain costs. In such a climate, euthanasia or assisted suicide certainly could become a means of cost containment…” (n.d). In an environment like this, patients and caretakers who are already in vulnerable states may start to believe that euthanasia is their only option since any other alternative would be costly for the families involved.

Families of hospitalized patients aren’t the only ones who suffer in cases where euthanasia is administered. The emotional and psychological impact on the physicians involved plays a big role in this discussion. Doctors participating in physician-assisted suicide actively goes against the Hippocratic Oath which stands to uphold certain ethical standards and to do no harm. Studies show that physicians administering lethal injections often display feelings of conflict and turmoil. Ezekiel Emanuel conducted a survey that says, “...38 U.S. oncologists who reported participating in euthanasia or PAS, more than half of the physicians received ‘comfort’...” Comfort in this case refers to counseling and therapy sessions. The act of killing your patient, even if it’s for their own good, does have a psychological effect on the person. It isn’t easy to admit that the patient you’re caring for is beyond help.


As often as the debate on euthanasia arises, the discussion on whether euthanasia is used ethically is also brought to light. In a lot of earlier cases where PAS is involved, there existed a lot of abuse in its moral use. A popular 2016 case of euthanasia in Netherlands abused the policy of PAS when a doctor administered sedatives in a dementia patient’s coffee who struggled against the euthanasia injection. The family of the patient had to “hold them down” as they passed away. This caused controversy over the use of euthanasia, and especially the use of it in cases where it isn’t even wanted. This particular patient suffering from dementia neither wanted the injection nor needed it. The doctor involved had been placed under investigation after this unethical use of this controversial medical procedure. It stands to reason that even if a patient was given a choice, does that necessarily mean that euthanasia is the right answer?


Citations/Sources