Argument Essay Rough Draft

Local Views and Legislation of Euthanasia Euthanasia is defined in Taber’s Cyclopedic Medical Dictionary as; “1. Dying easily, quietly, and painlessly. 2. The act of willfully ending life in individuals with an incurable disease. Ethical considerations of this act are being actively debated. One difficulty is how will the physician or society determine that the time for acting to kill the patient has come.” (Taber, Pg. 683). I choose this particular dictionary to reference the definition of euthanasia specifically because of the detailed explanation that ethical considerations are being actively debated. Some may contend that euthanasia is a practice to be upheld in the U.S.A. due to being a country of freedom and liberty, and that is kind to allow one’s suffering to stop. However, others remain opposed and stand firm on the notion that assisting death is unethical, un-Godly, and to be illegal. The debate of assisted-suicide is argumentative amongst society, doctors, and legislators in Hawaii and throughout the nation; with recent regards to changing current law, euthanasia should remain to be illegal. Assisting in death, encouraging death, and advocating for death is wrong in many ways. Societal opinions differ and are found to be expressed throughout Hawaii in organizations, churches, and personal testimonials. What causes one to even think that assisted suicide is an acceptable foreseeable option? An example pros for debate is the notion of becoming invalid; according to an article by UH Philosophy Professor, Ron Amundson, a “Fear of Being Disabled Drives Advocates of Assisted-Suicide Bill” (Amundson, Pg.1). The idea of becoming disabled, or an invalid, is a pre-conceived notion, and shouldn’t be a determining factor in deciding one’s length of life. Many people live and maintain active and happily fulfilling lifestyles even after becoming disabled. One of the problems within societal norms and expectations, is that we are of a humane culture, not to be mistaken by overly exerting compassion by representing that in order to remain humane we must allow assisted suicide. As we are raised up throughout our childhood, we are taught to be kind to one another and to be considerate and caring for the goodness. We as a society are taught that killing, and or any act involved with attending to death, is wrong and illegal. Activists are going against the societal norm, and hypocritically representing something so backwards and against everything taught and instilled into our nation’s humane style of upbringing. The majorities of our society here in Hawaii and across the entire nation believe in and practice Christianity. One example of how we as a Christian society are inclined to follow the morals instilled in us can be found in a statement made by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. The statement goes as follows, “we believe that life is the most basic gift of a loving God- a gift over which we have stewardship but not absolute dominion. Our tradition, declaring a moral obligation to care for our own life and health and to seek such care from others, recognizes that we are not morally obligated to use all available medical procedures in every set of circumstances. But that tradition clearly and strongly affirms that as a responsible steward of life one must never directly intend to cause one's own death, or the death of an innocent victim, by action or omission…We call on Catholics, and on all persons of good will, to reject proposals to legalize euthanasia."(www.usccb.org). Therefore, we, as citizens of Hawaii and the United States of America must stand firm on the morals of our upbringing, and not go against our Christian ways of humane practices. We are not God, many of us may be doctors and care givers, but mostly are not killers. In the medical realm of debates about euthanasia, assisted suicide, and the kinder terminology…dying with dignity; a question of medical ethic is commonly spoke upon. Do doctors really want to participate in dying with dignity, or do most oppose the notion? In Hawaii the majority of doctors find assisted suicide to be against medical ethics. An example of this notion is found in a response from the Hawaii Medical Association (HMA) and clearly states “Physicians, by nature of their calling, have compassion for those who suffer pain and indignity at the end of life. Instead of assisting those patients in committing suicide, this compassion and respect for patient dignity instills a demand on the profession to focus on the quality of care at the end of life….the cost to society of physician-assisted suicide is simply too high. The physician’s primary obligation is to advocate for the individual patient. At the end of life, this means that the physician must strive to understand and assist patients with various and unique existential, psychological and physiological factors that play out over the course of end-of-life care. Permitting physician involvement in assisted suicide would impose a significant and irreversible course change in the patient/physician relationship.”(www.civilbeat.com). The HMA is part of the American Medical Association (AMA), the HMA and the AMA both are organizations that represent the majority of doctors in the United States of America. Doctors in the U.S.A. take an oath in being licensed, as part of the code of medical ethics, and part of that oath proudly promises to first and foremost do no harm. Even though most doctors are opposed to playing God and deliberately ending a patient’s life, there are still few whom support the notion. Here in Hawaii, in recent news, a group of five doctors were found to be in support of assisted suicide, and were content in writing prescriptions for lethal doses of medication to be taken by the few mentioned patients to self administer and overdose. When such knowledge came to the attention of the Hawaii Attorney General(HAG) back in December of 2011, the response in regards to a physician doing such a thing, made by the Hawaii Attorney General David Louie, was that it could be grounds for criminal charges. Though the warning message from the HAG was announced and restated amongst the media, the State-of-Hawaii Medical Association, and heard by the Physician Advisory Council for Aid in Dying(PACAD); the five doctors of the PACAD are still contending support of dying with dignity. The PACAD was founded in January of 2012 and includes Dr. Charles Miller, a retired Oncologist (Oncologists are cancer treatment specialists). A supported document including Dr. Miller states “Whatever Hawaii law may say, Dr. Miller has no qualms about the medical ethics of what he and his colleagues have committed to doing. I know people call it assisted suicide, but this is not suicide,” said Dr. Miller, who retired about two years ago. “These patients are going to die. All they’re asking for is, ‘Can I have a choice in how to do that — of how to end my life?’”(www.amednews.com). Medical practice’s thrive to keep patients alive by administering and providing aid to treat ailments, cure illnesses, and correct anomalies throughout one’s lifespan; to resort to euthanasia is hypocrisy and contradicts the notion of saving lives. Impartial to the long standing debates on euthanasia, Hawaii Legislation has recently been presented with Hawaii Bill 606 (H.B. 606), in January of this year. H.B. 606 asks for an amendment to current law of prohibiting euthanasia. The H.B. 606 suggests that euthanasia is lethal injection, and calls for amendment based on the idea ‘dying with dignity’. Dying with dignity is just another loophole to attempt to make killing legal; the amendment seeks to approve lethal doses of medicine to be prescribed to a patient for self administering. This concept basically promotes that one can legally obtain physician assistance in suicide; such concept is not much different than manslaughter. Allowing this bill to pass would be unfolding of our nation’s dedication to civil rights. University of Hawaii Professor, Ron Amundson, advocates our nation’s democracy while reminding the citizens of Hawaii that; “The web site of the Hawaii Democratic Party says this: “We advocate social, health, and educational programs targeted to our keiki, our kupuna, our sick, our disabled, and our disadvantaged, so that we malama [care for] our most vulnerable people.”” (Amundson, 2002). As a society, do we want to establish trust while seeking and obtaining medical treatment, all throughout our lifespan, only to later ask the doctor to help kill us later? Should society continue to teach and instill humane treatment via Christianity to our peers and youth, to turn around later and say that the doctor has the form to grant consent on death? Is it not hypocritical and against our nation’s motto of ‘In God We Trust’? Isn’t it interesting that most physicians do not want to be part of killing off the ill. Does the enacting of H.B. 606 mean that it is acceptable to intentionally assist in killing the ill…but not acceptable to accidentally assist in manslaughter? We as a society take care of each other, with good intentions. Doctors are educated to help heal, cure, and promote confidence in medical science to the weary. Legislators should not approve euthanasia in Hawaii via H.B. 606, or any other means of amending law to legalize killing.

Taber’s Cyclopedic Medical Dictionary http://www.euthanasia.com/page6.html United States Conference of Catholic Bishops
"Statement on Euthanasia," on www.usccb.org
Sep. 12, 1991 http://www.civilbeat.com/voices/2012/12/05/17756-hawaii-medical-association-opposes-physician-assisted-suicide/ http://www.amednews.com/article/20120417/profession/304179996/8/ http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/session2013/bills/HB606_.htm http://www.uhh.hawaii.edu/~ronald/OpEd-suicide2.htm