Physician Assisted Suicide/Euthanasia: Shouldn't We Have That Choice?
Everest University Online – Tampa/Brandon

Abstract
Physician-assisted suicide/euthanasia has been a heated debate amongst many people and physicians since the 5th century. Most people do not think about their death or how and when they would like to die, if they were terminally ill. Until people start speaking up about their wishes about how and when they want to die, they will continue to slowly fade away and be in pain during that process. There really needs to be someone to step up and finish where Dr. Kevorkian was forced to stop helping people. There are hundreds, if not thousands of people that die every single day, and those people end up suffering because there is nothing, except conventional pain medications, that ease their pain while dying. While these pain medications do help sometimes, people are still suffering, waiting, and dying a slow death. This is why doctor assisted suicide/euthanasia should be legalized because at the end of their lives, most people do not want to suffer.

Shouldn't we be Able to Choose how and When to Die?
Have you ever thought about the way you would want to die if you were terminally ill? Most people do not think about things like that. However, if you could actually choose how and when you wanted to die, what choice would you make? If you had a terminal illness and knew that you were going to die very soon, would you want your family to watch you be in pain, listen to you yell or moan from that pain and slowly die? If you could have a way to die, that would keep you from suffering, and to keep your family from watching you go through the slow process of dying, would you do it? Like most people, you would and would want to go to sleep and not wake up. That is exactly what physician-assisted suicide/euthanasia is, you just drift off into a painless sleep. This will help to end a persons' suffering and to keep families from watching their loved one die a slow and agonizing death. Even though it is illegal, many people and doctors believe that it should be legal to help terminally ill people at the end of their life. This paper is going to show why doctor assisted suicide/euthanasia should be legalized because at the end of their lives, most people do not want to suffer. To Euthanize or Not
Doctor-assisted suicide/euthanasia has been an issue since the 5th century B.C. and is still a debatable issue today. The ancient Greeks and Romans believed that a person should have the right to choose when to die, if it were for the right reasons. Some physicians back then would keep a supply of poison for the patients who were terminally ill and wanted to die a quick death. Throughout antiquity, there was widespread support for voluntary death as opposed to prolonged agony, and physicians complied by often giving their patients the poisons they requested (Dowbiggin, 2009). In 1915, Dr. Haiselden was the first physician to allow a newborn with multiple deformities to die: Thus, the first doctor-assisted suicide was performed. Anna Bollinger had given birth to a seven-pound baby boy on November 12, 1915. This was her fourth child, but this child was born with many deformities and without surgery, this child would surely die. Dr. Haiselden was contacted after the attending physician had spoken with the father of the child. They had decided that the child would not have the life-saving surgery but instead the child would be allowed to pass away on his own. Within five days of being born, the child passed away and marked the milestone of euthanasia in America. The publicity surrounding Dr. Haiselden's professional conduct, briefly eclipsing news from World War I, inspired other Americans to speak out in favor of letting deformed infants die for the good of society. Haiselden demonstrated how support for euthanasia was nurtured by a cultural climate punctuated by science, naturalism, and humanitarian reform (Dowbiggin, 2009).
The widely accepted authority of the medical profession came under attack in the name of patient autonomy in the early 1970s. It was during this time that patients started to decide that they wanted to have the right to refuse medical care, even if it meant to sustain their life. The patients wanted to decide whether they would live or die, not to have their physicians make that decision for them. The goals have been to remove physicians from decision-making and to let individual patients weigh the benefits and burdens of continued life (Emanuel, 2009). While Dr. Ian Dowbiggin does not support physician assisted suicide/euthanasia at all, Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel does support physician assisted suicide/euthanasia but only if all other efforts have been tried and have failed. When people are terminally ill with no chance for survival, then they should have the right to choose when and how they want to end their life. It should not be anyone else's choice but their own. It is their body, they live in their body no one else does. People should have the right to choose on how and when they want their body to die.

Could This be Fair? Why is physician-assisted suicide/euthanasia any different from what they do to criminals on death row? Why should criminals be able to have their lives end quickly just because they killed a person? By all means, they should die because of their crime, but why should they get a painless death and our terminally ill have to suffer?, not to mention what their families are going through watching their loved one dying, being in agony, and waiting for them to die. How is that fair to the person who is dying or to their families? Why should our terminally ill patients have fewer rights than criminals who are put to death? Criminals on death row are treated more humanely when they are put to death than our terminally ill who are dying. Our terminally ill must endure the painful process of waiting to die but the criminals who are on death row know when they are going to die. The first known execution was done by firing squad in December, 1607, and early means of execution were considered inhumane; therefore, Dr. J. Mount Bleyer of New York suggested in 1888, that lethal injection would be more humane, cheaper and rob the prisoner of the hero status that was often attached to hangings at the time. (Clark, n.d.). So, it was inhumane for prisoners to be shot by firing squad, hung from a tree, or electrocuted in an electric chair. But, it is morally and ethically wrong for a terminally ill person to suffer with the dying process. Why should prisoners get to die by lethal injection, which is the same as euthanasia, and our terminally ill have to suffer? At the present time, physician-assisted suicide is legal in only three US states: Oregon, Washington, and Montana. Euthanasia is legal in only three countries in the world: Belgium, Luxembourg, and the Netherlands. We really need this to be legal in all states and in every country.
Clark (n.d.) researched and stated the following on his website about lethal injections:
Thirty-four American states have lethal injection protocols either as their sole method or as an option to one of the traditional methods. Only 32 states have actually carried out executions up to the end of 2010. Florida offered lethal injection as an option to electrocution from 1999, Alabama followed suite from July 1st, 2002 and Nebraska replaced electrocution by lethal injection in 2009. Many states have modified their old execution chambers to save the cost of building a new facility. California has constructed a new and yet unused lethal injection suite at San Quentin prison during 2009. Lethal injections at the Washington State Penitentiary in Walla Walla are carried out in the area under the trapdoors of the gallows. In Utah, the same death chamber is used for shooting and lethal injection executions.
Thirty-four states have used lethal injections to put prisoners to death, but only three states allow physician-assisted suicide? That is not right because this gives prisoners more rights than our terminally ill! The one person, who was trying to make a wrong right, was charged with murder and sent to prison for trying to help the terminally ill at the end of their life and that was Dr. Kevorkian. An Angel of Mercy
To some Dr. Kevorkian was an "Angel of Mercy," while others called him the "Angel of Death." He was nicknamed Dr. Death for his role in assisting approximately 130 individuals die with dignity. To many people, he was a friend, an "Angel of Mercy," and voice for the terminally ill.
Dr. Kevorkian (2007) stated in an interview with Larry King on CNN's Larry King Live:
Well, it's not to help them die. See, everyone's got this backwards. It's to relieve them of their intolerable and unending suffering. The patient's wish - see, that's not my wish. And that's what... Hippocrates says. He says you are the servant of the patient. The servant. But doctors today consider themselves, you know, the overlord of the patient. They've got that twisted backwards. So I've got to do what the patient requires. So I always felt that their wish comes first, no matter what.
This shows how much Dr. Kevorkian cared about his patients, and how he did not want to see them suffering. He built a machine that enabled a person to end his or her own life with a flip of a switch, push of a button, or removal of a clip. Dr. Kevorkian did not kill anyone; he helped to end their pain since they were terminally ill. He believed that physician-assisted suicide/euthanasia should be a medical procedure to help end a patients' suffering. Even though Dr. Kevorkian lost his freedom for a while, he believed with all of his heart and soul that what he was doing was the right thing to do.
Dr. Kevorkian in an interview with Anderson Cooper was asked the following question:
Anderson Cooper: If you were ill, if you had a terminal illness or in pain, would you take your own life?
Jack Kevorkian: If it was unending pain and there was no cure, of course. I'm doing this for me. It's my natural right. That's in the Constitution, in the ninth amendment, which is ignored. I have a natural right to do whatever I want with my body, anything, as long as it doesn't affect anybody else or any other property and I give permission, myself permission to do it. That's true of anything. I help a patient only with his permission to do what I think is necessary and it's all laid out in detail to the patient. (Christine Nyholm, 2010)

The End of a Great Debate
People do not realize that everyday doctors are trying to keep people alive when they know that the inevitable for a terminally ill person is that they are going to die. This happens all over the world in hospitals every day; doctors are assisting life until the end of their patients' life comes. That is being hypocritical because it is the exact opposite of doctor-assisted suicide/euthanasia. What is the difference between the two? Only one thing: one sustains life and the other ends life. People fill out living wills and DNR's every single day. Is that not a doctor assisting in death? Let people choose how and when they want to finish out their lives. If they can say they do not want life sustaining procedures done if they are going to die, then why can't they get that little extra help so they are not suffering? Doctors have been assisting in patient deaths since around the 5th century. This has always been a great debate. So, why are criminals put to death for their horrible crimes; animals are put to death if they are suffering, so why can't humans be able to die with dignity and not have to suffer? Things like this make one wonder about society as a whole. Does society really care about our humans? Does society not care that there are people in horrible pain while they are in the dying process? Maybe they do get medicine for pain, but a lot of people and their families would just like for their loved one who is dying to be pain free and not have to watch their loved one slowly fade away. Why is this fair to the one who is dying and their loved ones? It is not fair and until they legalize human euthanasia/doctor-assisted suicide, people will continue to suffer. Society will continue to accept things as they are.

References
Clark, R. (n.d.). Lethal injection. Retrieved September 12, 2011, from Capital Punishment U.K.: http://www.capitalpunishmentuk.org/injection.html
Dowbiggin, I. (2009). Historical timeline: History of euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide. ProCon.org. Retrieved from http://euthanasia.procon.org/view.source.php?sourceID=581
Emanuel, E. (2009). Historical timeline: History of euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide. ProCon.org. Retrieved from http://euthanasia.procon.org/view.source.php?sourceID=533
Kevorkian, J. (2007). Did Dr. Jack Kevorkian ethically serve the best interests of his patients?: Interview with Larry King. ProCon.org. Retrieved from http://euthanasia.procon.org/view.answers.php?questionID=000162
Nyholm, C. (2010, April 16). Doctor Kevorkian interviewed by Anderson Cooper on CNN. Retrieved September 18, 2011, from examiner.com: http://www.examiner.com/cable-tv-in-national/doctor-kevorkian-interviewed-by-anderson-cooper-on-cnn

Opinion Polls/Surveys "When a person has a disease that cannot be cured and is living in severe pain, do you think doctors should or should not be allowed by law to assist the patient to commit suicide if the patient requests it?" |

| Yes | No | May 10-13, 2007 | Overall | 56% | 38% | Partisan views | Republicans (including "leaners") | 49% | 45% | | Democrats (including "leaners") | 62% | 32% | Churchgoers' views | Attend weekly | 35% | 62% | | Attend almost weekly/ monthly | 52% | 39% | | Seldom/ never attend | 73% | 21% | May 8-11, 2006* | 64% | 31% | May 2-5, 2005* | 58% | 39% | May 2-4, 2004* | 65% | 31% | May 19-21, 2003* | 62% | 36% | May 6-9, 2002* | 62% | 34% | May 10-14, 2001* | 68% | 27% | Mar. 12-14, 1999* | 61% | 35% | June 5-7, 1998* | 59% | 39% | June 23-24, 1997* | 57% | 35% | Jan. 3-5, 1997* | 58% | 37% | Jul. 26-28, 1996* | 52% | 42% |

"When a person has a disease that cannot be cured, do you think doctors should be allowed by law to end the patient's life by some painless means if the patient requests it?" |

| Yes | No | May 10-13, 2007 | Overall | 71% | 27% | Partisan views | Republicans (including "leaners") | 64% | 32% | | Democrats (including "leaners") | 77% | 22% | Churchgoers' views | Attend weekly | 47% | 51% | | Attend almost weekly/ monthly | 70% | 27% | | Seldom/ never attend | 84% | 14% | May 8-11, 2006* | 69% | 27% | May 2-5, 2005* | 75% | 24% | May 2-4, 2004* | 69% | 29% | May 19-21, 2003* | 72% | 25% | May 6-9, 2002* | 72% | 26% | May 10-14, 2001* | 65% | 31% | July 26-28, 1996* | 69% | 26% | Apr. 9-10, 1996* | 75% | 22% | Nov. 15-18, 1990* | 65% | 31% | July 6-9, 1973* | 53% | 40% | Jan. 8-13, 1950* | 36% | 54% | June 6-11, 1947* | 37% | 54% | | | | Subjects: 1,003 adults
Margin of Error: ± 3%
Source: Gallup Organization "Public Divided Over Moral Acceptability of Doctor-assisted Suicide," (96 KB) May 31, 2007
* Information collected in previous surveys by the poll's publisher and supplied for comparison; exact date, subject number and margin of error are not indicated.Both opinion polls were Retrieved from: http://euthanasia.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=000134 |

The 1000th lethal injection was carried out on July 21st, 2009 at the Southern Ohio Correctional Facility in Lucasville on multiple murderer Marvallous Keene. A state-by-state analysis is below – this is kept up to date (Clark, n.d.). State | First used | Executions | State | First used | Executions | | mm/dd/yyyy | 1982-1999 | 2000-2011 | | mm/dd/yyyy | 1982-1999 | 2000-2011 | Alabama | 12/02/2002 | 0 | 29 | Missouri | 01/06/1989 | 41 | 27 | Arizona | 03/03/1993 | 17 | 9 | Mississippi | 07/17/2002 | 0 | 11 | Arkansas | 06/25/1990 | 20 | 6 | Montana | 05/10/1995 | 1 | 0 | California | 02/23/1996 | 5 | 6 | Nevada | 12/06/1985 | 7 | 4 | Colorado | 10/13/1997 | 1 | 0 | North Carolina | 03/16/1984 | 13 | 28 | Connecticut | 05/13/2005 | 0 | 1 | Ohio | 02/19/1999 | 1 | 44 | Delaware | 03/14/1992 | 9 | 5 | Oklahoma | 09/10/1990 | 19 | 77 | Federal* | 06/11/2001 | 0 | 3 | Oregon | 09/06/1996 | 2 | 0 | Florida | 02/23/2000 | 0 | 25 | Pennsylvania | 05/02/1995 | 3 | 0 | Georgia | 10/25/2001 | 0 | 28 | South Carolina | 05/31/1996 | 19 | 19 | Idaho | 01/06/1994 | 1 | 0 | Tennessee | 04/19/200 | 0 | 6 | Illinois | 09/12/1990 | 12 | 0 | Texas | 12/07/1982 | 199 | 274 | Indiana | 07/18/1996 | 4 | 13 | Utah | 08/28/1987 | 4 | 0 | Kentucky | 05/25/1999 | 1 | 1 | Virginia | 01/24/1995 | 48 | 32 | Louisiana | 03/05/1993 | 5 | 3 | Washington | 10/13/1998 | 1 | 2 | Maryland | 05/16/1994 | 3 | 2 | Wyoming | 01/22/1992 | 1 | 0 | * Carried out at Terre Haute Indiana | | Total at | 09/13/2011 | 1090 | |