Exconde 1

Jessica Exconde
Mr. Newman
English 101: Rhetoric
1 December 2014
Physician-Assisted Suicide: Necessary or Unjust
You are experiencing difficulty and pain while doing simple things such as breathing and
you are barely able to move around. The pain is constant and excruciating. At least two doctors
have said that your illness is terminal and there is no way to cure it. The options are to receive
palliative care, which relieves pain but does not treat the illness and is not always effective, or
physician-assisted suicide, which is carried out by the patient willingly ingesting a lethal dose of
medication and is quick, simple, and painless. Thaddeus Pope, director of the Health Law
Institute at Hamline University, states that only in Oregon has this practice been legal in the
United States since 1997 and with increasing recognition, it has recently been approved in just
two other states. With Oregon as a guide, the protocol is that the patient must give their consent
twice orally, spaced about 2 weeks apart, and once handwritten, which is witnessed by at least
two people, and can retract their request at any time (Pope). They must also be mentally healthy
residents of Oregon, 18 or older, who have had two physicians determine that they have no more
than six months to live (Pope). However, it has been declared that other countries have
experienced unethical medical practices where some patients were being administered the
medication for illnesses that could be fixed and they were nowhere close to dying within six
months due to their illness (Byock). When it comes to the declining well-being of a patient, no
possibility of further treatment, and unnecessary resources are being used, physician-assisted
suicide may be the only option available so therefore this procedure should not be taken lightly.

Exconde 2
Like abortion, physician-assisted suicide is a controversial topic. They both come down
to the question: who has the right to determine who lives? It should be simple enough; each
person should have control over their own body and determine what happens to it. Anita
Freeman, sister of a terminally ill patient, recalls that she had watched [her] 66-year-old sister
die in pain from Stage 4 liver cancer. It took five weeks and it was excruciating for both of us.
Since physician-assisted suicide was not available where Freeman lived, her sisters doctor
advised a legal advancement of death by voluntarily not consuming anything. So another
question arises: how is this any different from assisted suicide? There really is none; starving a
patient seems just as unethical as aiding them in suicide. So why is one legal and the other is not?
I can empathize with Freeman and her sister. My aunt suffered from breast cancer, diabetes,
obesity, and serious breathing problems from decades of smoking. She could barely talk at times
and her health was declining at a rapid rate. She was only in her early 50s when she passed from
a heart attack. It was shocking and sudden, we thought we would have more time but we knew it
was limited. But looking on the bright side, she didnt have to suffer through prolonged years of
pain and we didnt have to think about alternative options for when her health was at an all-time
low. Having to go through this experience is emotionally and mentally damaging. You have to
think about what is best, letting the person you love go and letting them pass peacefully, or
spending more time with them but while theyre suffering. However, many people think that
assisted-suicide is unethical.
With everything, you have the good and the bad. With Oregons comprehensive process
of physician-assisted suicide, you would think that little could go wrong in a perfect world.
However, that is most certainly not the case. Corrupting evidently exists and theres no escaping
it. For example, Ira Byock, chief medical officer of the Institute for Human Caring of Providence

Exconde 3
Health and Services, notes that a 47-year-old Dutch mother of two was granted her wish to die
because of long-standing tinnitus (ringing of the ears) [and] 45-year-old congenitally deaf twins
were euthanized in Belgium rather than face the prospect of losing their sight. In both cases, the
patients could have been easily treated and in the latter, their blindness was just a prospect,
which means a possibility, not a certainty. According to Oregons protocol, this would not have
been allowed in the United States and yet Byock indicates that Holland and Belgium are
sophisticated countries with universal health care so why wouldnt the US turn out just like
them? However, assuming is not evidence. It cannot be predicted that the US as a whole will
corrupt this procedure, but I acquiesce that there is a possibility.
It is common knowledge that aggressive treatments, such as chemotherapy for cancer
patients, are used on relatively young patients that have a high chance of surviving their illness
and living for a long time in order to increase this chance. However, for the sickest and most
elderly patients who have terminal illnesses and weaker immune systems, they are receiving the
same aggressive treatments which creates a sort of false hope for them and their loved ones that
they can still get better and decreases their quality of life to spending unnecessary time, energy,
and money in hospitals. Sandeep Jauhaar, a cardiologist, says that about a third of Medicare
dollars are used to treat people in the last six months of their lives this is more than one dollar
out of every hundred that we spend in this country. To talk about money with a controversial
subject like this can seem unethical and insensitive. However, this money can instead be used for
a higher quality of education, perhaps even for doctors so that procedures like physician-assisted
suicide and limiting aggressive treatments can be successful.
With this ongoing debate, theres no telling where it could go. There are many naysayers
that could potentially deny a persons right to die peacefully and with dignity. This could be due

Exconde 4
to lack of experience with this issue, where they never had a loved one suffer, or their beliefs are
against suicide, physician-assisted or not. However, letting someone suffer can be equally as
unethical as helping their pain stop forever. Just like with abortion, not all doctors are required to
practice it and not everyone has to agree with it. With the expenses from palliative care and
unnecessary operations going into helping a terminally ill patient and the hopelessness of a
patient not getting better, it is necessary for our legislatures to thoroughly consider enacting this
procedure along with consequences if not followed correctly.

Exconde 5

Works Cited
Byock, Ira. "Doctor-Assisted Suicide Is Unethical and Dangerous." New York
Times: Room for Debate. New York Times Company, 7 Oct. 2104. Web. 25 Nov.
2014.
Freeman, Anita. "Everyone Deserves to Die with Dignity." New York Times: Room
for Debate. New York Times Company, 7 Oct. 2014. Web. 24 Nov. 2014.
Jauhar, Sandeep. "Limit Aggressive Treatments for the Sickest and Oldest
Citizens." New York Times: Room for Debate. New York Times Company, 7 Oct.
2014. Web. 25 Nov. 2014.
Pope, Thaddeus M. "Oregon Shows That Assisted Suicide Can Work Sensibly and
Fairly." New York Times: Room for Debate. New York Times Company, 7 Oct.
2014. Web. 24 Nov. 2014.