"Death may be the greatest of all human blessings.” – Socrates
When Jack Kevorkian, a.k.a. Dr. Death, was recently released from prison, the dialogue concerning the right to die re-emerged. Those on both sides of the debate hold strong opinions as to why they agree or disagree with Dr. Kevorkian’s mission. Yet, in the simplest form, what the opponents seem to be missing is that we are born dying – and we have the right to die with dignity.
To refresh your memory, Dr. Kevorkian is a pathologist who champions the cause of a terminal patient’s right to die via physician-assisted suicide and has performed the procedure himself. Patients who wanted to die consented to voluntary euthanasia, having life-ending chemicals injected into their body. Kevorkian’s only role in the deaths was hooking the patient up to the machine that administered the chemicals. To date, he assisted in the deaths of at least 130 patients before being sent to prison in 1999. He was charged with second-degree homicide and delivery of a controlled substance and was imprisoned for assisting in the 1998 death of Thomas Youk, a patient in the final stages of ALS, yet he only served eight of the ordered 10 to 25 years due to failing health.
Upon his release, Dr. Kevorkian appeared on Larry King Live to discuss physician assisted suicide. The conditions of his parole state that he cannot assist in the death of anyone else nor can he care for any patient who is disabled or over the age of 62. The ill doctor agreed to the conditions and his role in the right to life debate has shifted. He now vows to make his mission persuading states to change their laws in regards to physician-assisted suicide by making it legal. Currently, Oregon is the only state where it is legal.
Though supporters have criticized Kevorkian’s methods (his interesting looking ‘suicide machine’ for starters), the main focus in the battle is whether anyone should be allowed to consent to voluntary euthanasia assisted by a physician. Some say better care, like that of Hospice, would be a solution while some say that we are obligated to allow the terminally ill to die on their own terms. Both sides of the coin have an argument.
Death is something we grow up fearing. It’s hard to understand the concept of death, the finality of it all, since there is such a fear of the unknown. No matter your religious status, the fact that no one has ever died and come back (unless you believe the accounts of near-death experiences) to tell us what awaits at the end of the tunnel gives many the heebie-jeebies. Nevertheless, we will all, at a given time, die. Death (and taxes, as the saying goes) is the one constant in everyone’s lives, not unique to any individual.
Since dying is not merely an option in the grand scheme of things, we are entitled to have as much control over our death as possible. I think I can speak for the masses when I say we want to die as peacefully and as comfortably as allowed. That is one main argument of the proponents of the right to die movement – we must not deny our loved ones the right to, with a fully aware mental state, become free from the pain and suffering that comes with a terminal illness and to do so with the utmost dignity.
The other side of the proponents’ arguments remains within the issue of quality of life versus quantity and duration. Although our days are numbered the instant we take our first breath at birth, we strive for a good quality of life throughout our existence. We measure the quality of our lives by not only our physical health but our emotional health and our daily abilities. When one suffers physically, they begin to suffer mentally and their day to day life as it were ceases to exist. Those that choose to put an end to their suffering should not be denied physician-assisted suicide for these reasons alone.
But, by no means should the choice to die be made haphazardly. Many opponents feel that allowing physician-assisted suicide to be conducted legally will cause a slippery slope…that more and more patients, terminally ill or not (mainly those suffering from depression), will choose this method of death as a solution to their problems. While I am all for a person’s own right to die, there should be stipulations. More than one doctor should determine that the patient is indeed terminal – that there is no cure for what ails them and their lifespan is short due to such. More than one psychiatric evaluation should take place to assure that the patient is in the right frame of mind to make such a decision.
Oregon has such stipulations. The patient must be terminally ill, mentally competent, be able to administer the drugs themselves, and must make that request once written or twice verbally. Such requirements can be made universal, on a state-by-state basis. And evidence indicates, by the cases in Oregon, that just because the option exists, it is not necessarily always used. Having the option in general is comforting enough to those fighting a losing battle with disease, knowing that there is hope should they choose to die sooner rather than later.
None of us want to give up our loved ones, let alone allow them to choose to die by a lethal injection. However, just as an individual has the right to choose ‘do not resuscitate’ when receiving hospital and/or Hospice care, they have just as much right to choose voluntary euthanasia. No matter the pain or anguish that we as the remaining loved ones face, we cannot and should not make such a call.