ENC 1102C
June 20, 2011
The Right to Die: Physician-Assisted Suicide In cases such as the Death before Dignity Act, lawmakers and citizens are trying to legalize what some would call physician-assisted suicide or euthanasia. Physician-assisted suicide is when a physician provides the means of death for a gravely ill patient but the patient takes the final step ( Dictionary.com, LLC ). According to Dictionary.com, euthanasia is the act of putting to death painlessly or allowing to die as by withholding extreme medical measures, a person or animal suffering from an incurable, especially painful disease or condition. In most cases, the physician would recommend to the family or the patient would ask for him/herself but you have many instances where the physician hastens or rushes the patient to make the decision (Henry). The issue at hand though, is why a person can’t have control over their life and determine when it shall end. If one is mentally competent and have a terminal illness, meaning they have six months or less to live, why can’t one end their life? If all they’re doing is lying in a hospital bed receiving palliative care, eating pills like candy just to try to ease the pain, why can’t one say “okay, enough is enough?” Place yourself in their shoes, imagine if you were diagnosed with lung cancer that metastasized to your brain, or if you no longer had HIV but AIDS, would you want to live through that pain or would you rather ease it all by ending your life? That is the question at hand. How can a lawmaker or a governor have the right to tell one that is terminally ill that one must continue to live in misery without any dignity?
In the Battle over Assisted Suicide: A Time to Die, Sarah Henry argues that assisted-suicide is meant to give people the choice and the control of life’s end. One should be able to control and decide when their natural life should be over. Henry also argues that people have access to assisted suicide; it’s just that it’s being done so badly, why not approve of the law so it can be done more efficiently (Henry). She argues this by bringing up the case in 1986, when the Second District California Court of Appeal ruled that a woman with cerebral palsy was not terminally ill, but lived only with the aid of a feeding tube which she had the right to refuse the device. In this case, they stated and argued that it is neither a medical nor legal decision for her physician to make or to be determined and resolved by attorneys and judges. It is a moral and philosophical decision that, being a competent adult is hers alone (Henry). If a women who isn’t terminally ill has the right to have the decision to refuse the device, why can’t a person who is terminally ill, not have these same rights?
Henry argues this again by stating another instance where an eccentric and bright nine-year old by the name of Gabrielle Phillips* had a heart attack after a surgery and was left with severe brain damage and comatose. After only surviving due to life support, her chances of coming back were rare to none. After being withdrawn from life support by the order of her mother, Gabrielle went into respiratory distress (Henry). As the effects of the distress continued, Henry stated that Phillips’ mother begged for her daughter to be made more comfortable and finally she said to the physician Elizabeth Thomas*, “I can’t take this anymore. Give my daughter some dignity.” As the mother pleaded, Thomas then upped the dosages but still Gabrielle gasped and then, Thomas finally gave Phillips a lethal dose of potassium chloride (Henry). Thomas states that “the little girl was dying and… I don’t see the harm in making sure that she didn’t feel pain. Why should anyone during the last moments of their daughters’ death have to watch their child gasp? And why should it take 18 hours for her to die? Why?” (Henry). And that is the question, why? If one’s death is known to be near and one is in excruciating pain, why not let them die at least in a peaceful, pain-free state?
Collen Carroll Campbell takes a contrary position by arguing that the “troubled economy and aging population is making assisted-suicide laws ripe for abuse”. She also argues that assisted-suicide makes the person who’s life is at hand; feel as if his/her life is becoming a hindrance and that they would be better off dead which is where the right to die converts to becoming a duty. Campbell argues this by telling the story of 64 year old, lung cancer patient Barbara Wagner. To continue living for another four to six months Wagner was faced with paying $4,000 a month for drugs. Campbell stated that she resided in a low-income apartment and was a retired bus driver. She wrote to her insurance company asking and they told her they could not help but they could foot the bill for an assisted-suicide (Campbell). This response is a potential for cheap insurers and bureaucrats trying to cut healthcare expenses, this is also one of the many ways physician assisted-suicide can be abused due to a troubling economy (Campbell). In another instance, after agreeing with the doctor’s recommendation to withdraw food and medicine from a patient deemed with a low “quality of life”. The patient then awakened and wanted to eat, the family wanted to resume both food and medication, however the doctor became frustrated and the family felt as if they were being pressured and rushed to end their loved ones’ life. Campbell states this because doctors lose their compassion behind the entire physician-assisted suicide and become all about clearing a bed to make room for another patient.
Both Campbell and Henry would both agree that laws to and for assisted-suicide must be strict and followed carefully and that the physicians who assist must have the best interest of the patient in mind at all times because abuse with physician-assisted suicide is so easy to come by because doctors can start losing the compassion and start assisting people because they feel this person should die or to make things easier on themselves. If families are being rushed and pressured to take the assisted-suicide route doctors may go directly to this option instead of actually working and trying to determine what’s best for the patient. Finally, both authors would probably agree that the decision to die should come from the person who’s life is at stake with no bias or influence from family members, physicians, etc. which is why the person must be mentally competent. I believe that Henry and Campbell would also agree that the entire procedure as a whole must be very well thought-out and must be a rational decision.
Being that I’ve experienced this situation more than once, I can relate whole-heartedly to both sides. However, taking one’s life is murder. Should I have played God and given a lethal dose or shall I say, double dose of Morphine to my 94-year old bedridden patient, who was in her right state of mind but also, ready to die? Or would it have been better to give the same medication to one with no family, speechless, bedridden, and tube-fed with impaired skin integrity (bedsores)? The question at hand still remains, but at the end of the day when I leave my job, I know in my heart and mind the medical decisions made are ethical and in the best interest of my patients . (1,283 words)

Works Cited
Campbell, Colleen Carroll. “When the Right to Die Becomes a Duty.” St. Louis Post-Dispatch 28 May 2009: A17. SIRS Researcher. Web. 19 Jun. 2011.
Henry, Sarah. “The Battle over Assisted Suicide: A Time to Die.” California Lawyer Jan. 1996: SIRS Researcher. Web. 19 Jun. 2011.
Olds, Sharon. “The Promise.” Reading Literature and Writing Argument. Missy James and Alan P. Merickel. 4th ed. Boston: Longman, 2011. 591-592. Print.