Physician-Assisted Suicide Case

Physician assisted suicide was brought to mainstream attention in the 1990’s due to Dr. Kevorkian’s “suicide machine," who claims to have assisted over 100 suicide deaths of terminally ill patients with Alzheimer’s disease (Dickinson, p. 8). In the early 1990’s, for the first time in United States history the issue was brought to the voting polls in California, Washington, and Oregon (Dickinson, p. 9). The bill was passed in Oregon; legally allowing physicians to facilitate death of the terminally ill, but voters fails to pass the bill in Washington and California (Dickinson, p. 9). In 2008 voters in Washington State passed the Washington Death with Dignity Act (Dickinson, p. 277). Today

One of the most controversial end-of-life decisions is “physician-assisted suicide” (PAS). This method of suicide involves a physician providing a patient, at his or her own request, with a lethal dose of medication, which the patient self-administers. The ethical acceptability and the desirability of legalization of this practice both continue to cause controversy (Raus, Sterckx, Mortier 1). Vaco v. Quill and Washington v. Glucksberg were landmark decisions on the issue of physician-assisted suicide and a supposed Constitutional right to commit suicide with another's assistance. In Washingotn v. Glucksberg, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the state of Washington's ban on physician-assisted suicide was not unconstitutional.

Facts: The state of Washington passed a law that made it a crime to assist in a suicide that takes place within the state. The crime is listed as “promoting a suicide attempt” and is classified as a felony offense. In order for a person to be convicted of this crime it has to be proven that the defendant knowingly caused or aided another person in an attempt to commit suicide. In January 1994 Dr. Glucksberg along with four other doctors, three terminally ill patients who died before the case reached the

In 1991, by a vote of 54 to 46 percent, Washington State voters defeated Initiative 119, a measure that would have permitted physicians to provide assisted suicide by a prescription for an intentional lethal overdose of drugs. After that, three attempts were made in the Washington State legislature to transform assisted suicide, which was a crime in Washington, into a “medical treatment.” All three attempts failed. However, in 2008, assisted-suicide proponents targeted the state for a massive effort to make Washington only the second state to approve assisted suicide. With a voter initiative on the 2008 ballot, they succeeded, by a vote of 57.91 to 42.09 percent, in making it legal for doctors to help their patients commit suicide. There had been over 340 cases in the year

'Choosing death before dishonor is seen by some philosophers and ethicists as a rational reason to commit suicide.' In the 1994 case of Glucksberg v. Washington (Otherwise acknowledged as Compassion In Dying v. The State Of Washington), Harold Glucksberg, alongside the right-to-die organization Compassion In Dying, filed a suit in opposition to the state of Washington for three fatally ill patients he treated.

The United States is a nation founded on freedoms and liberties, giving each citizen the ability to make their own life decisions. This freedom includes all aspects of one’s life, including medical care. With freedom comes responsibility, and this is true in terms of physician-assisted suicide. The ongoing struggle between those in favor and those opposed to this subject has ravaged the medical field, bringing into question what is morally and ethically right. The fact of the matter is that physician-assisted suicide is neither morally nor ethically acceptable under any circumstance. Not only is it a direct violation of a doctor’s Hippocratic Oath, but it is not constitutionally binding. Physician-assisted suicide would also lead to

The U.S. Supreme Court upheld court decisions in Washington and New York states that criminalized physician-assisted suicide on July 26, 1997.12 They found that the Constitution did not provide any “right to die,” however, they allowed individual states to govern whether or not they would prohibit or permit physician-assisted suicide. Without much intervention from the states individuals have used their right to refuse medical treatment resulting in controversial passive forms of euthanasia being used by patients to die with dignity such as choosing not to be resuscitated, stopping medication, drinking, or eating, or turning off respirators.9

I will be discussing the criteria needed to legalize physician-assisted suicide by applying different moral theories. My main argument is supported by care ethics, but I will also be using Utilitarian, Kantian and Disability ethics to support legalization. Provided that the patients are competent and fully informed, physician-assisted suicide should be legalized in strict circumstances where life-ending treatments are the only or best way to care for a person.

The laws aim to protect doctors’ and institutions’ rights, but those are seen far from powerless in the process. One of the main arguments against assisted suicide attempts to prevent doctors and institutions from accumulating so much decision power over patients that, over time, unintended incentives and convenience may lead medical community to expand assisted suicide to troublesome or uninsured patients. Research of assisted deaths in Oregon shows the participating patients do not fall into such vulnerable categories, but the concern for future exposure remains.

A retired social worker, Smith, was diagnosed with cancer at the age of 86. He said that he has no regrets but worries about the pain. "Death itself is not a fearful consideration for me," he said. "But the process of dying could be if it were extremely uncomfortable." He is in no haste to die but expects that he will feel severe pain when the cancer reaches its final phases and when it happens; he would want his doctor to be able to prescribe him with a toxic dose of medication that he can use to end his life

District Court for the Western District of Washington. This case challenged the constitutionality of Washington Revised Code Section 9A.36.060, which makes it a crime to knowingly assist, aid, or cause the suicide of another person (Darr, 1997). The district courts ruled the statute unconstitutional because it violated the Due Process clause of the fifth and fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The court also pointed out that the Cruzen decision reflected the ancient common law tradition of protecting patients from unwanted medical treatment (Darr, 1997).

Doctor assisted suicide is a topic that has recently become a much larger debated issue than before. A timeline put together by Michael Manning and Ian Dowbigging shows that prior to Christianity, doctor assisted suicide was something that was tolerated, and was not heavily questioned (2). Yet, in the 13th century, Thomas Aquinas had made a statement about suicide as well as doctor assisted suicide, and his words shaped the Catholic teaching on suicide into what they teach today. Beginning in the 17th century, Common Law tradition frowned upon suicide, as well as assisting in suicide, and the colonies had adopted the Common Law principles. (2) In 1828, New York passed a law completely outlawing the assistance of suicide, and made it to where whomever assisted in the suicide could be tried for murder. In 1976, California became the first state to allow patients to withdrawal themselves from life saving medicines, and this Natural Death Act was seen as a gateway to assisted suicide. (3-7) As controversy about California 's Natural Death Act increased, Pope John Paul II released a statement in 1980 which opposed to killing someone out of mercy, but allowed the increased use of painkillers (8). Although, in 1994 Oregon passed their Death with Dignity act, and with it came incredible amounts of backlash. Yet, in 2008 Washington state passed the same act to legalize doctor assisted suicide. (10-12)

A state's categorical ban on physician assistance to suicide -- as applied to competent, terminally ill patients who wish to avoid unendurable pain and hasten inevitable death -- substantially interferes with this protected liberty interest and cannot be sustained." - ACLU [3]

     A. “ Whose life is it, anyway?” These were the words of the late Sue Rodrigues, a

The right to assisted suicide is a concerning issue that has gained major attention and sparked major controversy as of late due to its immoral, yet respectable outcome. Over the past 20 years, attempts to gain legal consent to physician-aided suicide has become successful in several states including Oregon, Washington, Vermont, and California, with Montana slowly approaching a court decision. The idea of physician-assisted suicide exhibits our exercises of free will, along with general compensation for the pain and suffering endured, as well as economic opportunity, supporting those who wish to let go and the physicians that care for them.