Hillman 1
Tina Hillman
English 250, Section VC
Assignment #3 Revision
“Should we develop a judicious, regulated social policy permitting voluntary euthanasia
for the terminally ill?” William May, a well-known ethics professor, doesn’t believe so (May
32). In his compelling essay titled “Rising to the Occasion of Our Death,” May assesses the
familiar moral debate concerning passive and active euthanasia. He claims that passive
euthanasia (letting someone die naturally, maybe by taking them off certain medications) should
be permissible, but active euthanasia (purposefully ending a patient’s life, possibly by giving
them a lethal dose of medication) should be illegal. By appealing to the readers’ emotions and
using a compassionate and gentle tone, May tries to persuade readers to his way of thinking and
hopes to instill in them a need to advocate for social policy against the regularization of active
euthanasia.
May begins his essay by first providing a real life example of active euthanasia. Janet
Adkins wanted to die, and her physician Jack Kevorkian fulfilled her wish. May introduces the
subject of his essay by asking questions and making readers think about their stance on
euthanasia in general. “Some moralists argue that the distinction between allowing to die and
killing for mercy is petty quibbling over technique. But there are other moralists who believe that
there is an important moral distinction between allowing to die and mercy killing” (May 32). The
bulk of May’s essay focuses on the latter half of this argument.
William May is an ethics professor at Southern Methodist University in University Park,
Texas. He originally wrote this piece for The Christian Century, a magazine that discusses
theological issues and values the dignity of life. May could be writing for fellow ethics
Hillman 2
professors or even Christian, conservative adults who already agree with his beliefs. Still, his
main audience is the people he wants to influence into action. It’s the people who are “on the
fence” with this issue: the people who have no opinion or aren’t sure which side to take.
Since this is a moral argument, there is no concrete, empirical evidence to support May’s
claim. Instead of pointing to scientific facts or statistics, May focuses on moral values about life
and death. He mentions that “the best death is not always the sudden death” (May 32). The
terminally ill patient and the patient’s family can prepare for the death together. They have time
to begin their grieving, and they can forgive each others’ differences. When patients die
unexpectedly, loved ones have a much harder time dealing with the death; prolonged illness,
while not desirable, does allow people to come to terms with the inevitable parting. May
references Geoffrey Gorer, an English anthropologist, who says that a family faced with the
sudden loss of someone suffers from a “limitless grief” (May 33).
May also argues that active euthanasia or “mercy killing” is not at all killing mercifully.
Many people argue that it’s a patient’s choice to end their suffering; but is it really? How can
citizens call it a compassionate killing if the patient was treated without compassion when they
were alive? May makes a striking point in paragraph seven: “To put it bluntly, a country has not
earned the moral right to kill for mercy unless it has already sustained and supported life
mercifully” (May 33). It’s easier to put someone to death than it is to care for them. Some
patients may feel forced into accepting euthanasia because they feel there is no other way. May
states that establishing a social policy that opposes active euthanasia will avoid these situations.
Although most states in the US consider active euthanasia illegal, there are three states –
Oregon, Washington, and Montana – that have taken the plunge to enact social policy favoring
physician-assisted suicide ("State Laws on Physician-Assisted Suicide - Euthanasia.") All three
Hillman 3
states have Death and Dignity laws; these laws state that terminally ill patients with little to no
hope for recovery may ask their doctors for lethal medication. Before their request is
acknowledged, the patient must make two verbal requests and write a final request with one
witness present. Another stipulation of the law says that two physicians must agree on the
patient’s physical state and whether or not the patient has a chance of recovery. Finally, the
patient is the only one allowed to administer the lethal medication. A review written in 2004
shows that forty-two Oregon residents ended their life under the protection of this law, and this
had no overall impact on the death rate in the state ("Death with Dignity in Oregon, Washington
& (soon to be) Montana."). This means that no one is abusing the law, and the patients would
have most likely died eventually anyway. Although neither the doctor nor anyone else is
physically responsible for ending the patient’s life, May would not condone this kind of practice.
Of course, May acknowledges that there are rare exceptions. If someone is in utter torture
or in horrific pain, or if there’s absolutely nothing anyone can do to help the patient, the person
suffering should be allowed the option of voluntary euthanasia. He illustrates this further by
offering an example of a Vietnam soldier whose limbs were completely torn from his body. He
even says “I would hope that I would have the courage to kill the sufferer with mercy” (May 33).
However, because these circumstances are very specific, it’s best not to have social policy that
legalizes active euthanasia. We can’t rely on the law to solve our problems; following our morals
may be a hard way of life, but it’s the best way (May 33).
Hillman 4
Works Cited
"Death with Dignity in Oregon, Washington & (soon to be) Montana." Exitinternational.net.
Web. 07 Dec. 2012.
May, William. “Rising to the Occasion of Our Death.” The Aims of Argument: A Brief Guide.
Ed. Timothy Crusius and Carolyn Channell. New York: McGraw Hill, 2011. 32-33. Print.
"State Laws on Physician-Assisted Suicide - Euthanasia." ProCon.org. 3 Dec. 2012. Web.
07 Dec. 2012.