The Struggle with Physician Assisted Suicide in The United States

Your Body, Your Choice

Brittany Maynard killed herself when she was 29 years old. On November 1, 2014, she took lethal medication, prescribed to her by her doctors, in Oregon in her home surrounded by her family (Ertlet 1). “I want to live,” she said. But she had brain cancer, a stage 4 Glioblastoma tumor, with very little time left for her life. “It’s a terrible way to die. Being able to choose to go with dignity is less terrifying,” she explained (Should Euthanasia...1). However, this right to die, the right to physician-assisted suicide, is currently only legal in 4 states across America (State-by-State...1). Physician-assisted suicide, or PAS, is the “process in which a doctor of an either sick or disabled individual engages in an activity which directly or indirectly leads to the death of the individual” (Salubre 1). Contrary to popular belief, PAS and euthanasia are not the same thing. While both involve lethal medication, the difference lies in who administers the medication. In PAS, the patients administer the medication to themselves, while euthanasia involves a third party administering the meds (Braddock 1).

The struggle with PAS in America began in the early 1900s, when the first euthanasia bill in Ohio was drafted and didn’t succeed (Chronology of...1). A huge step was made years later when Oregon passed the Death with Dignity act in the late 1990s, legalizing PAS under a variety of safeguards and guidelines (1). Perhaps one of the most memorable events in the history of PAS is Dr. Jack Kevorkian, who assisted over 100 ailing patients in their death. However, even though these patients made the decision voluntarily, Kevorkian was eventually charged with murder (1). Why should a man who helped terminally ill patients wishing for death, die, be sent to prison? Physician assisted suicide should be legal everywhere due to the concept of bodily autonomy, which is inclusive of the reasoning that the freedom to live according to one’s personal beliefs should be upheld always, and that terminally ill individuals can choose how they die rather than let their lives be taken involuntarily by an incurable illness and should not be forced to suffer.

Bodily autonomy is one of the most fundamental human rights. One cannot be forced to donate blood, to donate a kidney, to have sex or to carry a pregnancy (Personal Autonomy 1). An individual should always have control over who or what uses and what happens to his or her body. This right of privacy and personal autonomy is protected in the 14th amendment, which states any state is denied the right to “deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws” (14th Amendment 1). Being able to commit suicide with the help of a doctor is as basic a right as any and is included in the array of liberties under the concept of bodily autonomy; being able to kill oneself should be an individual’s choice in doing what they wish with their body and life.

Through an understanding of this simple yet intricate notion of bodily autonomy, one can conclude that an individual’s freedom and right to live according to their own personal beliefs, specifically those that cause no harm to other individuals’, should never be infringed on. This is stated in the first amendment of the constitution, which guarantees freedom of expression (First Amendment 1). If an individual with a terminal illness and who has undergone certain safeguards, wishes to end their life and end their suffering, their physician should be able to prescribe him or her lethal medication to do so. This action does not cause harm to the patient or others, it does the opposite in helping an individual by ending their suffering.

And ending suffering is not an unfamiliar or immoral concept to Americans. When an animal is suffering, a majority of people will consider, if not advocate, euthanization to “put the animal out of it’s misery”; the general American population will generally consider letting a suffering animal live in pain as cruel. The same should go for humans; an individual who is terminally ill should not be forced to suffer, and instead should have the option to choose how they die instead of waiting to be killed by an incurable illness. It is inhumane to force an individual to suffer, just as it is inhumane to let an animal suffer, and it is implausible to believe the idea that “there is a duty to continue living”. Believing in such a senseless concept, forcing an individual to live despite terminal illness and/or pain, might encourage ailing patients to take matters into their own hands and try to commit suicide in other ways. This was the case with Danny Bond, who was born prematurely, and as an infant developed an infection in his bowel lining; the health problems never stopped as he got older and he was only able to spend a few months outside of the hospital at a time. At 20 years old, he had endured over 300 surgeries, and he wanted nothing but to die and be done with his suffering. But the only legal way for him to kill himself was through starvation. He died at the age of 21 over the course of several days (Grimminck 1).

However, there are common assumptions that patients who request to die make the decision irrationally, that legalizing PAS will increase the rates of suicide, and that it will put pressure on the poor and underprivileged. Nevertheless, while these are legitimate concerns and questions, these conceptions can be disproved by looking at the state of Oregon, in which PAS has been legal for nearly ten years (Ten Years...1). Since the Death with Dignity Act was passed in Oregon in 1997, over 1,100 people have received lethal medication, fearing a loss of autonomy and dignity, and around 750 have actually used them to end their lives (Pope 1). Oregon has an abundance of safeguards in place to ensure a patient is making an informed and voluntary decision when requesting lethal medication, some of which include: patients must be at least 18, mentally healthy, and have had two physicians determine that they have no more than six months to live; the physician is required to educate the patient about all options and the patient must make 3 separate requests, each separated by at least 15 days, and one request must be written and witnessed by two other people (1). The patient is able to cancel their request at any time, and if they choose to die they must administer the medication themselves (1). And these preventative measures work, there is no evidence of disorderly impacts on vulnerable populations; over 98% of the patients who died from PAS had health insurance and over 72% had received a partial or complete college education (1). Naturally, with the legalization of PAS, the rates of PAS in Oregon did increase, over 306% since the first year of legal PAS (Ten Years...1); however, it was in no way associated with an increase in non-assisted suicides (Jones 1).

In conclusion, bodily autonomy defines an individual’s right to choose what happens with their body and what they choose to do to their body, including everything from getting a tattoo to choosing to be an organ donor, from getting an abortion to asking a doctor to help end your life. Therefore, it should be every individual’s right in all places to have the option to end his or her life if they are terminally ill and in chronic pain, with no or little hope of a better future. Steps that can be taken to help this cause and increase the number of places where PAS is legal include voting for presidential, senate, House of Representative, etc. elections, and support candidates who advocate for legalizing PAS and advocate for bodily autonomy. Several other countries, such as the Netherlands and Belgium, have legalized PAS, and it’s about time America put its promise of freedom into play and followed in their footsteps (Chronology of...1).