The patient's family gathers around his bedside. He is a healthy-looking man in his forties, but he is quiet and pale. His doctor has just told him that he has metastatic lung cancer. “I want to die,” he says, and his family murmurs in dismay. “There's nothing they can do for me except keep me alive to suffer.”
“That's not true,” says his wife, putting a reassuring hand on his. “Miracles happen all the time.” The doctor, standing in the doorway, shakes his head. He's seen this before, and he knows what will happen. The patient will waste away, racked by palliative chemotherapy and radiation, destroyed by pain, slowly suffocating until at last he is mercifully taken by a coma, and then death. Every step of the way, he will beg the doctor and his family to help end his suffering. This is what will and does happen, and the doctor and I watch in despair and anger. This patient, you see, was my uncle.
What my uncle wanted can be described in many different ways – a mercy killing or assisted suicide, among other terms. However, the scientific community usually refers to it as euthanasia. Euthanasia is illegal in all areas of the world except Belgium, the Netherlands, and Oregon. Denying a mentally competent, terminally ill patient the right to choose how and when he or she will die is a violation of the ethical principles of innate human dignity and personal choice. Allowing someone to suffer is not, contrary to the belief of some, dignified or holy. It is needless agony that affects not only the patient, but also his or her loved ones and caregivers. We allow people to make the choice to smoke, to abort their pregnancies, to marry whomever they choose and live in whatever way they want. Doctors can save people from death. Is it so wrong to deny them this most personal of all choices and to save them from life when life is no longer worth living?
As someone who is interested in a medical career, and as someone who has worked and lived with the severely ill and the dying, I can well appreciate their courage. As much as I admire their faith and perseverance in the face of certain defeat, I can't help but think that some of them must want a way out. Plenty of people consider suicide; what makes this group of people special is that their problem is not only depression. Their problem is that they must make a very clear decision: to die naturally, or to die by euthanasia. Unfortunately, this is usually a decision with only one answer. A mentally competent, adult patient should not have to suffer needlessly with no escape. To me, it signifies more respect for human life to assist that life's end if the patient makes that choice, than to refuse his or her plea for assistance.
In the end, it all boils down to the patient's view on euthanasia. Various religious and other groups have argued that there are ways to alleviate someone's pain and improve their quality of life. A patient's loved ones may cling to these resources, such as narcotics and comforting hospice care. This argument fails to recognize that there are drawbacks to such alternatives. By the time my uncle died, he was on such a large amount of narcotics that he existed in a stupor twenty-four hours a day. He did not experience an improvement in his quality of life, as all of his personal needs had to be handled by others. He could not eat anymore, and was nourished by an IV. He could still interact with us, one benefit, but it was hard for us to see him reduced to such a state.
As I have said before, if we claim to value human life so highly, why do we not value humans' opinions as highly? Perhaps there is fear that euthanasia will be abused. Critics point to instances in Oregon where physicians have offered dying patients death-dealing pills, but not proper treatment for their condition, because the pills were cheaper. All laws can be abused; this is one of the drawbacks of living in a democratic society. If proper restraints were put on euthanasia, such as requiring the doctor to have a permit and having the patient go through a strict physical and psychological examination to determine if there are any factors that might cloud his or her judgment, euthanasia would be much less likely to be abused.
Since I do not have any power in the medical field, I plan to go to my acquaintances at the hospital where I work and ask them for their opinion on euthanasia. To those who support it, I would ask for reasons why. Then, we could spread awareness in the community by talking to community doctors and lawyers, sending letters to local newspapers, and publishing articles in medical newsletters arguing the case for euthanasia. The Internet, a great tool for spreading information, could also be used. In the debate over euthanasia, many people have forgotten about those whom it affects directly – the patients. They do not understand that not all people would be forced to be euthanized, as that also interferes with free choice. This is one aspect of the issue that I would like to focus on, so that maybe in 100 years when people look back and think, “How could they not have allowed euthanasia?” they can also think, “At least we have it now.”
