The case of Karen Quinlan is the most famous because it was the first case to bring the issue of euthanasia to public attention. The case of Quinlan includes passive euthanasia, active euthanasia, and assisted suicide. In 1975, Quinlan got into an irreversible coma after drinking alcohol and using tranquiller at a party, and her parents asked that she must be removed from a respirator. In 1976, the New Jersey Supreme Court agreed and allowed them to have a respirator disconnected. Although Quinlan breathed on her own and lived for another nine years after being removed from a respirator, her case was the first example of a court’s approving passive euthanasia as a legal action (Bender, 13).
In the 1980s, active and passive euthanasia came to the public’s attention in the case of Nancy Cruzan. When Cruzan was left in an irreversible coma after a 1983 car accident, her parents asked that a feeding tube that provided her with hydration and nutrition be removed. After several years in court, in 1990 they finally were allowed to have her feeding tube removed, after which she died. Her parents believed that removing the feeding tube was passive euthanasia because the tube was a medical treatment keeping their daughter alive. To people who opposed their actions, they believe that Cruzan’s parents killed their daughter through starvation. Karen Quinlan’s father, Joseph, responded with astonishment when asked in 1976 if he would seek to have his daughter’s feeding tube removed. He responded, “Oh, no, that is her nourishment” (Bender, 14). Many people agreed with him, in contact, other people supported Cruzan’s parents’ opinions of removing their daughter’s feeding tube. More people began to argue that measures such as those taken by Cruzan’s parents could sometimes by acceptable and legal.
Life is extremely valuable, and to end it through euthanasia is very unethical. All acts of killing patients and allowing them to die are morally wrong. In 355 BC, Hippocrates, a Greek physician, said, “I will give no deadly medicine to any one if asked, nor suggest such counsel” (Cundiff, 121). People must understand that no matter how ill a patient is, they never have a right to put a patient to death, and they have a duty to care for him and preserve life. David Bender, an author of Euthanasia: Opposing Viewpoints, who says, “Life is a gift from God that we are not free to end on our own terms.” Since doctors still profit the hospital visits to their patients, people must recognize that there is a financial incentive to doctors to keep terminally ill patients alive.
Euthanasia may destroy the trust of medical professions such as doctors and physicians. People could become frightened of their doctors and wouldn’t think of them as their friends, but as their enemies. The citizens might fear that doctors are too eager to use the new techniques at their disposal and be scared away from proper health care. Widespread euthanasia might also serve to destroy the ethical image and trust of the medical profession. For instance, Dr. Jack Kevorkian let Janet Adkins, a 54-years old suffer of early Alzheimer’s disease, pushed a button on a machine, which released lethal fluids into her body. He had administered death to dozens to other people, and several people now don’t trust him anymore. A person on AMA’s Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs says, “Allowing physicians to perform euthanasia for a limited group of patients who may truly benefit from it will present difficult line-drawing problems for medicine and society” (Pavone, 48).
More than a few people who even want to die or doesn’t want to die are put to death with euthanasia. Many people who attempt to take their own lives, and many who succeed really don’t want to die, and their acts show that they are desperate for help. For example, in a legal case, a psychiatrist helped a depressed by physically healthy patient commit suicide (Cundiff, 13). When the patient wants life-sustaining treatment, the physician won’t allow furthering the treatment to keep a patient alive. For instance, from 1921 to 1923, wounded German veterans who refused to die were being put to death by euthanasia. “The patient wants life-sustaining treatment, the physician doesn’t believe the quality of the patient’s life justifies the cost to the health institution or the physical and emotional burdens of care; and therefore, the doctor is entitled to refuse further treatment” (Bender, 23).
Killing an incurable patient with euthanasia may be the easiest and cheapest way to stop his pain. It is inappropriate to allow a patient to suffer and
Due to the controversy over the issue of legalizing euthanasia, many organizations have either been developed, and provide information on the issue. There are many ways to become involved in the issue of euthanasia.
American Foundation for Suicide Prevention (AFSP) supports scientific research on depression and suicide, educates people and medical professions on the treatment of depressed and suicidal individuals, and provide support programs for those people coping with the loss of a loved one to suicide (Leone, 80). It opposes the legalization of physician-assisted suicide. If a citizen is interested contacting American Foundation for Suicide, he writes to:
American Foundation for Suicide Prevention
120 Wall St., 22nd Fl., New York, NY 10005
(212) 363-3500
Fax: (212) 363-6237
American Life League believes that euthanasia is unacceptable and it educates American on the dangers of all forms of euthanasia. It opposes legislative efforts that would legalize or increase its incidence (Leone, 80). If you are interested to contact this organization, write to:
American Life League
PO Box 1350, Stafford, VA 22555
(540) 650-4171
American Society of Law, Medicine, and Ethics (ASLME) provides critical thoughts to medical professionals concerned with legal, health care, policy, and ethical issues. It publishes the Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics. If you want to contact the American Society of Law, Medicine, and Ethics about euthanasia, contact them:
American Society of Law, Medicine, and Ethics
765 Commonwealth Ave., Suite 1634, Boston, MA 02215
(617) 262-4990
Fax: (617) 437-7596
Compassion in Dying (CID) believes that terminally ill patients should receive information about all options at the end of life, including those that may hasten death (Leone, 81). It provides information on pain management, comfort or hospice care, and effective aid in dying. To contact this organization:
Compassion in Dying
6312 SW Capital Hwy., Suite 415, Portland, OR 97201
(503) 221-9556
Death With Dignity National Center’s goal is to promote a humane, responsive system of care for terminally ill patients. It publishes a variety of information including the pamphlet entitled, Making Choices at the End of Life. To contact this organization, write to:
Death With Dignity National Center
520 S. El Camino Real, Suite 710k,
San Mateo, CA 94402-1702
Euthanasia Research and Guidance Organization (ERGO) provides informations and research studies on physician-assisted dying to people who are terminally ill and wish to end their life. Its members counsel dying patients and develop ethical, psychological, and legal guidelines to help them and their physicians make their life-ending decisions (Leone, 81). If people are concerned in contacting Euthanasia Research and Guidance Organization, they write to:
Euthanasia Research and Guidance Organization
24828 Norris Ln., Junction City, OR 97448-9559
(541) 998-1873
Website: eanet /ergo.html
The Hemlock Society believes that terminally ill patients have the right to commit suicide. The society publishes books on suicide, death, and dying, including Final Exit, a guide for those suffering with terminal illness and considering suicide. If you are interested in contacting this organization, you’d write:
The Hemlock Society
PO Box 101810, Denver, CO 80250-1810
(303) 639-1202
Fax: (303) 639-1224
E-mail:
Website:
Human Life International (HLI) opposes euthanasia and believes assisted suicide is morally unacceptable. It defends the rights of the unborn, the disabled, and mentally retarded threatened by euthanasia, and it provides education and support services. If people are interested in contacting this organization, they write to:
Human Life International
4 Family Life Ln., Front Royal, VA 22630
(540) 635-7884
Fax: (540) 635-7363
E-mail:
Website:
International Anti-Euthanasia Task Force (IAETF) opposes euthanasia, assisted suicide, and polices that threaten the lives of the medically vulnerable (Leone, 82). It publishes fact sheets and position papers on topics that relate with euthanasia. If a citizen is interested to contact with this task force, he writes to:
International Anti-Euthanasia Task Force
PO Box 760, Steubenville, OH 43952
(740) 282-3810
Email:
Website:
National Right to Life Committee (NRLC) is an activist group that opposes euthanasia and assisted suicide. It publishes the monthly NRL News and the four-part position paper, Why We Shouldn’t Legalize Assisting Suicide. If you’d like to contact them, write to:
National Right to Life Committee
419 Seventh St., Suite 500, Washington, DC 20004
(202) 626-8800
E-mail:
Website:
Many arguments opposing euthanasia have been provided; leaving people with no doubt that euthanasia is morally wrong and unacceptable for terminally ill patients. The euthanasia destroys how valuable life is, and destroys the society and the trust of the medical professions. Even though people who want to take their own lives, they don’t really want to die and they are desperate for help. In conclusion, euthanasia should be forbidden and illegal in all countries.