Argumentative Essay for Assisted Suicide

Imagine the life of an active woman. This woman has hiked the five miles up and back down a volcano, twice in one day. She is a volunteer fire fighter who maintains a nine acre golf course and swims laps after work. She has her gardens she tends, her camping trips, and likes to join a tennis match when the mood hits. Now see this woman three years later. She can barely get out of bed. She is on a PICC line (an intravenous line that leads straight into her heart) being fed the antibiotics to stop the spread of the infection that has taken root in her spine. She has a baby she is not allowed to lift due to the surgery she recently had, the surgery that gave her the infection. During child birth the child was pulled from her womb in a manner that caused prolapse of her organs. Her vaginal cavity, uterus, and intestines were visible outside of her body. The surgery consisted of removing the uterus (no more children), removing a portion of the intestines, rebuilding the vaginal cavity, rebuilding the bladder, rebuilding the colon, and reattaching everything to the right places inside of her. The extent of the damage, the surgery, and the infection leaves her with lifelong medical conditions that are incurable, cause excruciating pain, limit her lifting to five pounds, never allowing her to run or jump again, having the slightest force cause damage to her internal organs. In five more years the woman has gained over a hundred pounds due to medication and then lost all of the weight and more due to stopping the medication and the incurrence of new medical issues. She can not stand long, walk long, or even lay in the same position for long. Pain and insomnia keeps her awake all night and she randomly nods off through the day. Her stomach has been operated on because it had worked up into her esophagus. Her gallbladder has been removed. She is not yet thirty and can barely eat, use the bathroom, sleep, or even function. She is in the process of a divorce and no longer can take care of the son she lost custody of. She can't work, she can't take care of herself, and most of the people in her life have abandoned her. She will only degenerate further and there is no immediate sign of medical breakthroughs that will change her path. Does this woman have the right to end her life?

There are a multitude of laws and moral expectations that give a person the right to live. The only time this is questioned is when the person is convicted of a crime that leads to a sentence of the death penalty. Laws were created in order to allow for the death penalty and thus bypassing any right that person has to live. This, in turn, is giving a criminal the right to die. Now what if the person wanting to contest their right to live is not a criminal? What if this person lives a life of pain, degradation, humiliation due to conditions outside of their control, or any condition in which the person is no longer the functioning human they used to be? This is something that is allowed in some areas, few, but some that are willing to allow someone to have a medical right to die. One clinic even allows a person the right to die due to any reason they wish. What prevents us from allowing people the choice to have help dying? Some people say religion, some say laws, and some say the progress of medicine and technology. Despite the reasons why it is not allowed, there is compelling thought as to why it should be.1

In 1991, a doctor by the name of Jack Kevorkian became well known as Doctor Death. He used a machine he had dubbed the "mercy machine" to assist medically disabled patients to terminate their life. Dr. Kevorkian recorded the patient telling what they could of their story and that they did, in fact, wish to die. He also recorded the deaths as they occurred. In 1999, Dr. Kevorkian was tried for second-degree murder. The laws and lack of them gave way to his ability and then his persecution of doing what he thought was best for his patients. A movie created later, "You Don't Know Jack"(2010), would give people an inside view to what Dr. Kevorkian did and how he proceeded with his practice. The big question was whether or not this angel of mercy was actually a murderer. There were two arguments against Dr. Kevorkian. One was that he was playing the role of god. The other was that he was going against the Hippocratic Oath and the law by committing murder. The religious stance is not one that has much upholding. This is because many of his patients were religious and despite that, religion is not the law in America. As for the legal bearing, that is where the true problems arise. Most states are against assisted suicide, whether the doctor allows the patient to die by not treating them (passive) or by administering something that euthanizes the patient (active). Presently, some states do allow euthanasia under certain medical criteria, but not many. At the time, though, Dr. Kevorkian was locked by laws that were not worded in a way that could help him. In the eyes of the law, Dr. Kevorkian was labeled a murderer.2

Dr. Kevorkian, to some, seemed like a hero. He was a man that helped people who were suffering from some of the most painful and debilitating conditions pass on. He did make sure, though, that his patients had the mental capacity to ask and accept the help of a suicidal ending. Another debate brought about with assisted suicide is the ability to mentally be able to process the idea of suicide. And in cases where there is no brain activity at all, should the patient be allowed to die? The greyest area lies in those who are not fully mentally capable of making the decision, but are physically incapable of living a pain free life. For most people that support assisted suicide, they are very much in support of those with full mental capacities. Those without any mental function are dependent on that person's wishes before they got to that state. Those that are able to function mentally but are unable to understand what is happening is something no one has really decided upon yet. The goal is to allow people who know what they are doing to make this choice and have a right to die.

Another debate that is brought up with assisted suicide is the condition the person is trying to escape. Many people can sympathize with someone who has an incurable, irreversible condition that causes them excruciating pain. But what if the person is just severely depressed? Does that person have the right to die as well as someone with a truly difficult medical condition? This is another grey area of the debate. On one hand these people can often be treated with a single prescription or with therapy. But what if the person truly does not wish to live anymore? These people will often take their own lives if they are truly at the point of no longer wanting to live any longer. The question then is if it really matters if they are assisted in the process or not. There are many cases in which someone has attempted suicide only to be left paralyzed or in a state that is even worse to continue in. Many people will refrain from committing suicide based on the idea that they will fail, so why can they not seek help? It is thought that since suicide itself can't be prosecuted, that the only way to prevent it is to outlaw suicide (having repercussions if they fail) and assisted suicide. Regardless of what part is or is not legal or whether or not someone wants help to commit suicide, or even if they should be prevented, it is the person's right to decide if they should live or not. Society seems to believe that they have a right to make decisions about a life that is not their responsibility.

The law is the biggest hiccup with assisted suicide. There are some countries that have allowances of assisted suicide and/or euthanasia. The United States has a few states that also allow for euthanasia. Switzerland is the only place where there is no actual reason, or even citizenship, necessary to have legal euthanasia. At the Swiss clinic Dignitas, anyone can come in and be legal euthanized. Other clinics require a diagnosis of excruciating pain or terminal illness in order to allow for euthanasia or assisted suicide. There are currently five states in the U.S. that allow forms of assisted suicide. In Washingtion, Oregon, and Vermont the patients are allowed to get a prescription for medication that is in a dose high enough to end their life. In Montana, a doctor is not held accountable for assisting someone in ending their own life. In New Mexico, a doctor is allowed to assist a patient to commit suicide based on the constitution. The 14th Amendment of the Constitution, section one, states that people have free will, including that over their own life. Though progress is slow, these five states have made allowances in the past twenty-five years to give people their right to die.

In ancient cultures, death by suicide was honorable. When facing defeat or surrender, being allowed to end one's own life was an honorary gift. Many people today that are contemplating or wishing for an end to their lives do so out of the feelings of humiliation and loss of dignity. When someone is no longer able to take care of themselves, they do not wish for others to take care of them. This can seem debasing to the ailing person. Why was there a change? The biggest evidence is the change in views on suicide after the changes in religion amongst cultures. The Japanese samurai were often of Shinto based religions. Presently, many groups against assisted suicide, or any suicide, are utilizing Christian values. The introduction of this newer religion caused the demise of suicidal acceptance. Most countries that have laws banning assisted suicide even use religion as the basis. The problem with religion as an argument against suicide is that many people that wish to take that route are religious, some even "recently found," religion. Religion is also an opinion in the United States and not something that goes hand in hand with the law. This leaves the religious arguments against assisted suicide as rather ineffective.

The serious debate here is whether or not people have a right to die. We have so much in our rights, laws, moral obligations, and societal standards that give us the right to live. Our lives are protected from abuse, negligence, assault, and other forms of harm. Does this mean that they are also protected from self-harm? This would mean that a person only has limited legal rights to their own body. Who, but that person, can decide that they are in too much pain, are too immobile, or some other form, in a condition where living any semblance of a tolerable life is not going to happen? Pride may be the basis of some assisted suicide wishes, but the majority of the wants are based around parts of a person's life that are harder for an outsider to see. The woman that was mentioned in the introduction is a real woman. She now lives a half-life where she does what is necessary to get from day to day. She has regained the ability to move around, for the most part, but is easily injured or bed bound due to severe pain. She has lost her home, her child, her college education (due to a medical discharge from the degradation of memory that comes with one of the diseases she suffers with), and every aspect of herself that used to make her a happy, productive person. Once she attempted suicide unsuccessfully. Twice she was planning to do so. The first time she stopped was because she still was able to take care of her son to some extent. The second time was because someone else found her and loved her for not only who she was, but who she had become. Does she still wish to end her own life? Yes, she thinks about it constantly. Her biggest pause now is hurting the person that came into her life as she was losing her child and the rest of what mattered to her. So this poses the question of whether something can be gotten over or dealt with until the natural course runs out. Yes, it can. But should someone be forced to continue on if they can no longer tolerate what has to be dealt with? For the woman, everything is very fragile. Sometimes she can barely cope with what has happened to her and even the new person in her life can barely hold off her want for death. She cries daily, aching for a different time where she had full function of herself. When she has to self-catheterize in the bathroom in order to pee, or when she cannot sleep because every position sends waves of pain and spasms down her back. She has decided that the next fall back will be her last. She has an estimated two years left before she loses the function of her lower spine. She has made the decision not to continue past the point her spine actually does go. Who has the right to tell this woman that she must live out her life as it occurs? Who should tell her that she should allow herself to be put in a hospital to carry out her days, more likely years, on machines that allow her body to expel wastes? She is all alone except for one friend. She has nowhere to go and no one to help take care of her when things do get worse. People suffer from a multitude of conditions and diseases that cause unbearable pain and suffering. No one, but that person, should have the right to decide if that person must suffer or not.

References

1. Quffa, W., Voinea, D. (2013). Assisted Suicide-Between the Right to Life, the Obligation to live
and Social Acceptance. (Vol. 5(2), 2013). Contemporary Readings in Law and Social Justice, pp.261-266.
2. You don't know Jack [Motion picture]. (2010). HBO Films.
3. Barone, E. (n.d.). See Which States Allow Assisted Suicide. Retrieved March 27, 2015, from
http://time.com/3551560/brittany-maynard-right-to-die-laws/