FREE ESSAY ON THE CASE FOR EUTHANASIA: SHOULD PHYSICIAN-ASSISTED SUICIDE BE LEGALIZED?

THE CASE FOR EUTHANASIA: SHOULD PHYSICIAN-ASSISTED SUICIDE BE LEGALIZED?

The Case for Euthanasia: Should Physician-Assisted Suicide be Legalized?
Throughout the twentieth century, major scientific and medical advances have greatly
enhanced the life expectancy of the average person. However, there are many instances
where doctors can preserve life artificially. In these cases where the patient suffers
from a terminal disease or remains in a persistent vegetative state or PVS from which
they cannot voice their wishes for continuation or termination of life, the question
becomes whether or not the patient has the freedom to choose whether or not to prolong
their life even though it may consist of pain and suffering. In answer to this question,
proponents of physician-assisted suicide, most notably, Dr. Jack Kevorkian, are of the
opinion that not only should patients be able to abstain from treatment, but if they have
a terminal and/or extremely painful condition, they should be able to seek out the
assistance of a doctor in order to expedite their death with as little pain as possible.
Contained herein are the arguments for and against the legalization of doctor-assisted
suicide, as well as where the state courts stand in respect to this most delicate of
issues.
In the hopes of clarification, we must first distinguish between active and passive
euthanasia. Passive euthanasia involves the patient's refusal of medical assistance. It
involves the right to die which is protected by the United States Constitution clauses of
due process liberty and the right to privacy (Fourteenth Amendment). The right to
doctor-assisted suicide, or active euthanasia, consists of, ...a patient's right to
authorize a physician to perform an act that intentionally results in the patient's
death, without the physician's being held civilly or criminally liable for having caused
the death . 
The passive form of euthanasia was first deemed legal by the New Jersey State Supreme
Court in 1976 In re Quinlan . In the Quinlan case, the court allowed a competent patient
to terminate the use of life-sustaining medical machines to prolong life. Since New
Jersey's decision, all fifty states have enacted similar statutes which contain living
will provisions. However, although the United States Supreme Court upheld the Quinlan
decision in re Cruzan , it changed the parameters of passive euthanasia . With the Cruzan
decision, the Supreme Court held that passive euthanasia was legal but only for competent
adults or those who are incompetent but have previously procured a living will. However,
if the patient is without a living will and incompetent, it becomes the burden of the
family to prove that there is clear and convincing evidence to the affect that the
patient does not want to continue living in a vegetative state.
As to active euthanasia, there has been no Supreme Court ruling determining whether the
right to die, as understood in passive euthanasia cases, can be bound over to active
euthanasia. The decision is thus left to the individual states. Currently, thirty-one
states have criminalized explicitly the act of assisted suicide . Physician-assisted
suicide is generally recognized as illegal under the parameters of homicide, however it
is very difficult to meet all of the elements of the crime and conviction subsequently
becomes nearly impossible. The fact that the U.S. Supreme Court has not reviewed a
physician-assisted suicide case, which would create precedent, constitutes a dilemma for
the state courts in that there is no uniform test or ruling by which to decide.
Most states have developed their own laws to, more often than not, make doctor-assisted
suicide illegal. However, when a case comes to trial it is usually dismissed either by
the judge in a pretrial motion or by the jury. For example, in at least three of the
assisted suicides which Dr. Kevorkian was involved in, all criminal charges were
dismissed. So, the laws have been created, but when it comes to convicting a doctor and
sending him to prison, in lieu of the circumstances, the law often breaks down and the
charges are dismissed or the doctor is acquitted. 
In the case of the nineteen states which have not delineated the criminality of
doctor-assisted suicide, the issue becomes less clear. Many of these states have a hard
time grouping physician-assisted suicide with homicide. The case which Michigan judges
cite in refusing this linkage of criminality is the People of the State of Michigan v.
Campbell . In the Campbell case, the court found that 'the term suicide excludes by
definition a homicide' . Since, suicide is not a homicide, then an assisted suicide
cannot be deemed a homicide. At the time of the appellate courts hearing of the Campbell
appeal, there was no other codified law expressing what crime an assisted suicide would
fall under and the homicide charges were dismissed.
Anti-active euthanasia proponents feel that it is the duty of physicians to help and heal
patients as opposed to hastening their exit from this world. They also fear that the
legalization of doctor-assisted suicide may be abused by doctors who do not feel that
there is any hope for the patient and counsel them to terminate their life. The state
also has an interest in the life of the individual. The individual state was originally
set up to protect the rights of individuals and to see that the value of an individual's
life...and the value of life to society as a whole is protected. The value of an
individual's life includes their personal well-being and safety from harm, even if it is
self- inflicted. So, it has now become the duty of the individual states to balance the
interests of the state against the interests of the individual patient in order to come
up with a law which is accommodating to both.
Persons who are for active euthanasia believe that legislation against it is violative of
the fundamental concepts of liberty, freedom of choice, and self-determination They base
these beliefs on the text of the fourteenth amendment to the United States Constitution.
The voluntary choice between life and death is, to them, a basic human right which the
government has no right to legislate. They often compare this choice of euthanasia to the
right to abortion. Judge Lynn Compton embodies these views in her opinion in the case of
Bouvia v. Superior Court , If there is a time when we ought to be able to get the
government 'off our backs', it is when we face death-either by choice or otherwise .
The trend in the law seems rather obviously to be against the legalization of
physician-assisted suicide. This is clear due to the thirty-one states which have already
incorporated the act into their penal codes as being illegal. As to the other states,
there is much controversy as to it's legalization. Although in popular polls, the general
public seems to be in favor of active euthanasia's legalization, the courts in all of the
states find that the possibility for infraction of the statute supersedes the wishes of
the patient. The courts aim to protect doctors from civil suits, patients from doctor's
advisory abuse, and the country's general policy of the sanctity of life. In the courts
view, passive and active euthanasia are two entirely different things. One involves the
withholding or cessation of care which may or may not end up in death and the other
involves a doctor's administration of a lethal substance with the specific intent of
impending death. In other words, one entails allowing death to occur without doctor
intervention and the other is killing, albeit mercy killing.
Based on my research, it seems clear that the effort to legalize active euthanasia is one
that is not going to go away in the near future. This is especially due to the spread of
the AIDS virus and other incurable diseases. However, although I feel that it should be
legalized with certain provisions, I cannot foresee it's uniform, federal regulation in
the near future, especially with a conservative Supreme Court as is sitting today. 
Presently, there are twenty-one states which allow citizen legislation through the use of
the general election ballot. In these states, special interest groups which support
active euthanasia have placed initiatives on the ballot. An example of one of these
groups is the California based Americans for Death with Dignity or ADD . The DDA designed
a statute, proposition 161, that would legalize doctor-assisted suicide. The statute was
also created with extraordinary care to provide all reasonable precaution to protect
against the risks of legalizing the practice of active euthanasia. One of the clauses of
the statute which aims at the prevention of abuse is that the statute would only allow
licensed physicians to partake in helping someone end their life. Although proposition
161 was not passed, it is a reflection of the general population's sentiment that active
euthanasia should not be illegal. At the time of the publication of this article,
California, Washington, Oregon, and Michigan were preparing or has already proposed
general election initiatives which would permit aid-in-dying by physicians. 
The act of taking a life is a serious one. The American people are notoriously weary of
it's implementation, as can be seen in the case of capital punishment. Although, active
euthanasia is consensual, the paradox which lingers in the term physician-assisted
suicide is difficult for lawmakers and citizens alike to consent to.