Holladay1

Hannah Holladay
Miss David
HELA 10 Block 4
18 February 2016
Stopping the Suffering: Euthanasia as an Option for the Terminally Ill
In the United States, there are approximately 2,500,000 deaths annually, and although the
causes of death vary almost infinitely per individual case, some of the major factors include heart
disease, cancer, accidents, and terminal illnesses (CDC). Euthanasia, the intentional aid in death
for people suffering from terminal illness, is growing to be a more widely accepted practice in
many areas of the world. Certain individuals, facing statistical certainty of joining the ranks of
the annually deceased, often seek escape from their suffering through administration of lifeending drugs. The ethics of this practice are widely disputed amongst people with varying
ideologies, religious viewpoints, and safety concerns as to when and to whom euthanasia should
be provided. Nonetheless, euthanasia should be legalized for patients suffering from terminal
illnesses or incurable diseases because it eliminates ambiguity in medical cases, universalizes the
availability of treatment for those that seek it, and can provide safer opportunities for doctoral
administration to individuals. This practice can put an end to unbearable pain for patients who
know their quality of life is fleeting, and should be implemented with the best interests of the
patients in mind.
Medical professionals have long employed measures to ease patient suffering in ways
that may cause controversy as to whether certain pain medications actually contribute to a
shortening in lifespan. Legalization of euthanasia would help to provide clarification in regards
to what a doctor can and cant do to help manage pain and would leave little room for ethical

Holladay2
discretion. Without justification of practice, however, the lines between right and wrong become
blurred. Regardless of validation of law, Doctors have long quietly eased terminal agonies by
increasing pain relief to life-shortening doses. Under the doctrine of double effect, as long as the
intention was to relieve suffering rather than hasten death, no crime was committed (Final
Certainty). These types of scenarios inevitably occur because of the human desire to help those
in pain. Doctors who take matters into their own hands to shorten lives of patients by bending the
rules can avoid indictment because it is virtually impossible to distinguish whether they intended
to help manage pain or actually end a life. However, because euthanasia is illegal in many
different areas, Even if a hopelessly ill person is requesting assistance in dying for the most
compassionate reasons and the helper is acting from the most noble of motives, it remains a
crime in the Anglo-American world. Punishments range from fines to fourteen years in prison
(Humphrey). The idea that qualified healthcare professionals can face severe consequences or
even jail time for helping an ailing person who wishes to die can be discouraging to doctors that
want nothing more than to respect a patients desires. Euthanasia should be legalized to protect
the integrity of both the patient and doctor alike by allowing doctors to better serve the needs and
wants of the terminally ill regardless of where they live and without having to face repercussions
for their actions.
Legalization in various states and countries worldwide already exists; ailing patients
shouldnt be restricted to seeking euthanasia based solely on their geography. Oregon,
Washington, Montana, the Netherlands, and Belgium all advocate for the right to die with
dignity, and the legalization in certain areas of the U.S. specifically has prompted steps for
further promotion of euthanasia to be taken (ProQuest Staff). Despite these efforts to make
availability for treatment more widespread, people suffering from terminal diseases in other parts

Holladay3
of the world are at a disadvantage when it comes to their options, and often have to live in pain
while others around them get the solace they need. Brittany Maynard, a 29 year old who was
diagnosed with terminal brain cancer in 2014, served as an advocate for euthanasia
implementation as a way for people to have the option available to them regardless of where they
live. She was moved to action, saying of her condition, I am not suicidal. If I were, I would
have consumed that medication long ago. I do not want to die. But I am dying. And I want to die
on my own terms Having a choice at the end of my life... has given me a sense of peace during
a tumultuous time that would otherwise be dominated by fear, uncertainty, and pain (Griggs).
Maynards tragic diagnosis in California prompted her to move her family to Oregon so that she
would have the ability to die with physician assistance. The efforts she took to relocate to a place
where it would be legal for her to take life-ending drugs and the movement she created prompted
the state of California to consider legalizing euthanasia, which they officially did in 2015
following her death (Hardwig). Justification for usage is also occurring on a global scale, as,
With the adoption of Bill 52, Quebec joins the Netherlands, Belgium and Luxembourg as one of
the few jurisdictions in the world to administer lethal injections to suffering patients (Hamilton).
Quebecs passage of the bill comes with strict regulations allowing them to monitor who gets to
use medication and if certain candidates are mentally reliable and able to utilize euthanasia as a
treatment, making it a safe choice for the terminally ill. The guidelines set by project regulator
Veronique Hivon and others who worked on passing the bill help to make the process slightly
less controversial as well. Both Maynard and Hivon have paved the way to make euthanasia a
more widely accepted practice, but couldnt have been as successful as they were in their
movements without ensuring safety behind legalization and ensuring skeptics that the process
wouldnt be something that was taken advantage of.

Holladay4
Many people are unaware of the fundamental differences between assisted suicide and
euthanasia that make patient euthanasia a more socially acceptable and secure method of ceasing
pain. Although both are similar in that a patient is ending their own life given physician approval,
Euthanasia differs from assisted suicide in that with euthanasia the doctor can provide and
administer the drugs that are used to end a life whereas with assisted suicide the doctor may only
provide the drugs, not administer them (ProQuest Staff). Because euthanasia provides terminal
patients with the option of either doctoral or self-administration, they have the choice of having
their treatment more closely monitored, eliminating some of the questions in regards to whether
the assisted suicide process is intelligent and ethical in letting the suffering be entirely in control
of their death. This common misconception can lead to hesitancy, but clarification of the
opportunities the doctor can utilize in performing euthanasia practices has more appeal to ailing
persons seeking help. Further regulations imposed by areas that have legalized the practice
provide even more integrity to the concept of euthanasia as a valid option for terminally ill
people. For example, the bill passed in Quebec explicitly states that the only individuals who can
utilize treatment have to be adults who must suffer from a serious, incurable illness, be in an
advanced state of irreversible decline, experience constant and unbearable physical or
psychological suffering and request euthanasia in writing. A physician must obtain a second
medical opinion before personally administering the injection (Hamilton). The specific rules
laid out by Bill 52 ensure that doctors wont euthanize patients unless they meet specific criteria,
eliminating doubt for the procedure. Quebec, and all other nations that have legalized the
practice over time, each have some sort of bill or official document that includes safeguards to
make sure that medication doesnt get into the wrong hands, which differs immensely from some
of the looser rules established in assisted suicide practices. Euthanasia is similar to assisted

Holladay5
suicide in many regards, however, areas of the world that implement euthanasia practices do so
with the highest amount of knowledge on the subject possible, and with true concern for the
patients well-being and anguish at heart.
Despite advantages created by universal legalization, the subject of euthanasia and
whether its a morally acceptable practice remains widely debated. One of the most striking
arguments that euthanasias opponents make is that it is religiously unfair to end ones life before
God desires them to die. Perhaps the religion most opposed to euthanasia, the Roman Catholic
institution, believes that legalization promotes a culture of death where the Pope views
euthanasia as a manifestation of social views that have abandoned the protection of life and lent
support to liberalized abortion, capital punishment, and incessant warfare (Campbell). While
culture changes over the years have shifted from an age of utmost religious importance to an era
focused more on material items and social change, religion as a whole should not be a reason to
denounce the entire practice. Many religious and non-religious individuals seek euthanasia not as
a way to fit in with a culture focused on death, but simply as a way to die with their dignity intact
and prevent suffering for their families, not because they dont have a belief in a divine power.
In addition, equal opportunities should be provided to all individuals no matter their religious
background, and its unfair to impede the process of legalization based on the extreme opposition
of one religious group. Further arguments have posed the idea that its unfair to limit the type of
people that can and cant receive treatment based on age and severity of illness. One Great
Britain proposal advocates that euthanasia may be legally introduced only for those people with
six months to live; people who will die quite soon (Archer). The debate as to how sick a patient
should actually be to receive treatment is a genuine concern, but as universal legalization grows,
the issues in different bills can be worked out and a more standardized approach can be set in

Holladay6
place to protect any terminally ill patient who feels it necessary to take life-ending measures.
As euthanasia becomes increasingly legalized in different states and countries across the
world, many intellectual and ethical questions are raised. Because wide scale practice of
euthanasia is relatively new, healthcare professionals and terminal patients are forced to consider
the benefits and potential consequences of a physician assisted death. Nonetheless, patient rights
are vital to promote a healthcare environment where individuals have the right to choose the type
of treatment theyd like for their own personal reasons, and without being held back by groups of
people who have never been in their situation. Also, as awareness of the decision-making and
rule implementation that goes into passing euthanasia bills grows, safety concerns can be
eliminated as far as patient protection is concerned. Legalization of euthanasia should be an
option for the terminally ill, as it would help prevent indictment of doctors seeking to help,
global usage would provide equal opportunities for all, and clearly stated protocols make
euthanizing patients as safe as possible. Terminally ill patients deserve the right to stop their
suffering, and euthanasia is without a doubt the ideal way to achieve a dignified death.

Works Cited
Archer, Graeme. "Legalising Euthanasia Would Be Only the Start of Our Experiment." Daily
Telegraph. 15 Mar. 2014: p. 26. SIRS Issues Researcher. Web. 10 Feb. 2016.
Campbell, Courtney S. "Religions Sometimes Approve of Euthanasia." The Ethics of
Euthanasia. Ed. Nancy Harris. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 2004. At Issue. Opposing
Viewpoints in Context. Web. 14 Feb. 2016.

Holladay7
CDC. "Deaths and Mortality." Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention, 30 Sept. 2015. Web. 13 Feb. 2016.
"Final Certainty." Economist. 27 Jun. 2015: 16. SIRS Issues Researcher. Web. 11 Feb. 2016.
Griggs, Brandon. "Dying Young: Why Brittany Maynard's Story Resonates - CNN.com." CNN.
Cable News Network, 14 Oct. 2014. Web. 15 Feb. 2016.
Hamilton, Graeme. "Quebec Passes Bill Legalizing Euthanasia." National Post. 06 Jun. 2014: p.
A.1. SIRS Issues Researcher. Web. 09 Feb. 2016.
Hardwig, John. "Brittany Maynard died in a philosophically responsible way." Washington Post
5 Nov. 2014. Opposing Viewpoints in Context. Web. 10 Feb. 2016.
Humphry, Derek. "Voluntary Euthanasia Is Ethical." Euthanasia. Ed. James D. Torr. San Diego:
Greenhaven Press, 2000. Opposing Viewpoints. Rpt. from "Why I Believe in Voluntary
Euthanasia." www.finalexit.org. 1995. Opposing Viewpoints in Context. Web. 9 Feb. 2016.
ProQuest Staff. "At Issue: Euthanasia." ProQuest LLC. 2016: n.pag. SIRS Issues Researcher.
Web. 09 Feb. 2016.