Euthanasia

“If we are to have free will, that free will should include not only how we live our lives, but how long we live them” (Taylor 2003, 30). Euthanasia, the specific term for assisted suicide, has been a century old controversy (Clarfield 2003, 38). Its leader in the controversy is Dr. Jack Kevorkian, who has assisted in over 30 deaths since 1990. Dr. Kevorkian claims that the medical, religious,journalistic and legal communities won’t stop him. Psychologist Joseph Richman says that, “All suicides, including the “rational,” can be an avoidance of or substitute for dealing with basic life-and-death issues.” So which is right, helping dying people to achieve their last wish, or waiting for God to do his part while the ill sit there and die slowly and painfully? Euthanasia should be legalizedin the United States.
Hearing the negatives about euthanasia, the U.S. citizens need to also hear the good points of the topic. The question of who has the right to give or take life has played an important part in the history of technology, with designer babies and altering DNA. But it also contributes to the challenging question of who should be able to take another’s life as in physician’saide, or euthanasia (Clarfield 2003, 38). In 1972, the Dutch Council of Health did their own study and decided that euthanasia should be legal. They stated that doctors needed to follow rules and regulations to assist with death (Clarfield 2003, 38).

Rob Jonquiere states that, “These reactions are often very hypocritical. Doctors all over the world perform euthanasia, but they don’t report it.”(Kolfschooten 2003, 1352) So even if euthanasia is not legalized, doctors may continue to perform the procedure. So why not legalize euthanasia anyway! “If your life is yours, then it is no one else’s business if you choose to discontinue having experiences” (Flynn 2003, 25).

Then the moral issue comes in. Do individual’s lives belong to God? Religious leaders will argue that God had control overeveryone’s life until death, and physicians shouldn’t take that into their own hands. Although the conflict of euthanasia seems new, the actual procedure has been around since World War I (Clarfield 2003, 38). It became a strong issue in the 1920’s and 30’s, growing again in the 60’s and 70’s (Clarfield 2003, 38). New laws are still occurring, the last one updated by Dutch euthanasia describesnew regulations on April first 2002 (Kolfschooten 2003, 1352). Many supporters of euthanasia also advocated sterilization laws (Payne 2003, 57). But are the supporters agreeing with euthanasia because of their feelings towards the ill? Seventy to eighty percent of people polled that they felt sympathetic towards the terminally ill (Payne 2003, 57). Even if this happens to be true, euthanasia stillwas morally acceptable in their views. Just like divorce, marrying outside of a persons’ racial class, and issues dealing with social classes, euthanasia shall overcome obstacles of moral, ethical, and political views with time. People just need to realize that keeping someone alive against their will, happens to be more morally wrong than giving them what they want and rightfully deserve.Although euthanasia is illegal in the United States and its considered a taboo by most; some examples are shown in the following lines that would like to see physician-aided death prevail (Flynn 2003, 24). Freddie, who after being diagnosed with cancer refused chemotherapy as a treatment for the illness. He went in for surgery and had his bladder removed. A few days later the doctors told him that thesurgery was unsuccessful, and the cancer had spread to other organs. Freddie’s first week in the hospital was unbearable, waking up to day after day of pain because of laws against assisted suicide. His had spent the last three weeks in the hospital, the last one of which he spent unconscious, hooked up to machines. With a needle in each arm: one to keep him alive, and the other to keep him...