Euthanasia

EUTHANASIA

With the Terri Schiavo case in the headlines, it really makes you think about who would make those types of decisions for you if you were not able to. Fifteen years ago, I wrote a "Living Will", but it probably does not meet the criteria of a legal document, and it would take hours of going through papers to even locate it. I strongly believe that everyone should have his or her choice on what they would want done in certain circumstances. I would not want to be kept alive by life support if the chances of me recovering fully were small. The problem with that statement is the words "fully" and "small" are open to interpretation.

Euthanasia is defined as the intentional killing by act or omission of a dependent human being for his or her alleged benefit. The key word here is "intentional". If death is not intended, it is not an act of euthanasia (Remmelink). That is where interpretation comes into the issue.

A main argument of euthanasia advocates is a person living with unbearable pain. Documentation supporting this theory however is lacking. A recent Health Division report of assisted suicides in Oregon, the only state that has legalized physician-assisted suicides, revealed that not one patient had documented unbearable pain, but instead cited psychological and social concerns as their primary reasons (Hedberg). Who defines "unbearable"? One person's pain tolerance may be greater than the next or what is unbearable for one person may be acceptable for another.

An argument against euthanasia is that it would not only be for people who are "terminally ill". Jack Kevorkian said that a terminal illness was "any disease that curtails life even for a day" (National Press Club). Some laws define "terminal" condition as one from which death will occur in a "relatively short time". Medical experts acknowledge that it is virtually impossible to predict life expectancy of a particular patient. So then, exactly what is terminal? Euthanasia advocates ask, "Should people be forced to stay alive?" Advocates state that insistence, against patient's wishes, that death be postponed by every means available goes against the law and practices of the medical profession, and would be cruel and inhumane.

The argument that makes most people leery is that it could become a means of health care cost containment, due to the increasing emphasis on health care providers to cut costs. Not to mention the emotional and psychological pressures this would put on already depressed or dependent individuals. These people may feel guilty for not choosing death. Financial considerations, and "being a burden" would serve as powerful influences that could lead a person to "choose"