Charlotte Hudson
Unit III Paper
November 10, 2014
Adams
Is Euthanasia and Doctor Assisted Suicide Ethical?
Pain and suffering are intangible realities that alter the decision of life or death.
Euthanasia is the painless killing of a patient suffering from an incurable and painful disease or
in an irreversible coma (Neufeldt, 1988). Doctor assisted suicide however, is the voluntary
termination of one's own life by administration of a lethal substance with the direct or indirect
assistance of a physician (Neufeldt, 1988). These two topics have become more relevant ethical
dilemmas in the past century due to more developments in the medical field. Death is an inherent
right however pain and aguish may be the cause of choosing to die. ACLU Amicus Brief in Vacco
v. Quill (12/10/1996) Supreme Court case describes how euthanasia and doctor assisted suicide
are legal because of the due process clause within the fourteenth amendment. The counter
argument comes from Regulating how we Die by Linda L. Emanuel M.D, P.H.D she focuses on
how anguish and frustration affect the decision to choose euthanasia or doctor assisted suicide.
ACLU Amicus Brief in Vacco v. Quill (12/10/1996)
The following discussion determines that euthanasia and doctor assisted suicide can be a
just reason of reason of death accepted within the Supreme Court decision of ACLU Amicus
Brief in Vacco v. Quill (12/10/1996). The fourteenth amendment here is used to qualify the use
of euthanasia and doctor assisted suicide; the due process clause within the fourteenth
amendment states, it protects the personal choice of a “mentally competent, terminally ill
individual to terminate unendurable suffering and hasten inevitable death” (Amicus brief in
1
Vacco v. Quil, 1996). However, euthanasia and doctor assisted suicide may fall within the
parameters of the due process clause but, the due process clause does not check for ethical
integrity of what is being proposed.
Supreme Court decision of ACLU Amicus Brief in Vacco v. Quill (12/10/1996) uses the
due process clause to affiliate the decision that euthanasia and doctor assisted suicide are to be
considered a liberty. The Supreme Court was instated to create fair and ethical decisions without
the influence of bias; their just reasoning on euthanasia and doctor assisted suicide is explained
under the fourteenth amendment (Amicus brief in Vacco v. Quil, 1996). Euthanasia and doctor
assisted suicide is not remarked or directly stated anywhere else in the Constitution or the Bill of
Rights however, there are other methods to rationalize its justice or injustice (Amicus brief in
Vacco v. Quil, 1996). The founders of the United States did not see that it was necessary to
include even though they had less access to manageable pain medicine and medical help.
The Supreme Court must define that euthanasia and doctor assisted are to be considered
rights. Euthanasia and doctor assisted suicide must be “deeply rooted in the nation’s history” and
“implicit in the concept of ordered liberty” to be considered a right (Amicus brief in Vacco v.
Quil, 1996). The Supreme Court decided that the right to euthanasia and doctor assisted suicide
is rooted in the nation’s history because “terminally ill to find relief from excruciating pain by
hastening death bears the sanction of history” (Amicus brief in Vacco v. Quil, 1996). This
particular choice of reasoning seems barbaric due to its redundancy. Sickness may be rooted in
history but it does not make it an ethical decision to legalize just because disease happens.
Choosing euthanasia and doctor assisted suicide directly relates to “personal autonomy” which is
the entire premise of the “concept of ordered liberty” (Amicus brief in Vacco v. Quil, 1996).
Within this court decision they consistently repeat “the right of a mentally competent, terminally
2
ill person”, the Supreme Court by no means is condoning suicide but they understand that
incurable pain from an illness can be rationalized with a painless death (Amicus brief in Vacco v.
Quil, 1996). Throughout the entire court case the make sure to say “mentally competent”
however they do not give a definition of what “mentally competent” means. The Supreme Court
must leave room for interpretation however, the definition of “mentally competent” reflects on
someone’ s right to life or death. Amicus brief in Vacco v. Quil, states “For well over the past
half century, no person (physician or otherwise) has been meaningfully punished for aiding the
terminally ill to end their suffering”. There is no reason to criminalize an act that has not been a
justice issue in recent history. The Supreme Court is put in place to make impartial decisions on
ethical and moral topics. Although, they be impartial they are not considered experts in a specific
field like, euthanasia and doctor assisted suicide. The following section focuses on the negatives
of the legalization of euthanasia and doctor assisted suicide from a doctor’s point of view.
Regulating How We Die by Linda L. Emanuel M.D
The continuation of support for illegalization of euthanasia and doctor assisted suicide
claim, life is about living through pain; we would not have an understanding of the quality of life
if there were no suffering. Explanations of the unethical values of euthanasia and doctor assisted
suicide comes from the science journal of Regulating How We Die by Linda L. Emanuel M.D,
P.H.D. Linda L. Emanuel M.D depicts how unnecessary the legalization of euthanasia and doctor
assisted suicide. The legalizations will cause adverse affects in all states. Dr. Linda L. Emanuel
is one of the leading medical ethicist, she compiles a list of evidence on the ethical consequences
of euthanasia and doctor assisted suicide fro her open opinion and other physicians.
She discusses that the amount of pain an individual feels may actually be the feelings
anguish rather then physical pain (Emanuel, 1998). However, mental pain such as, depression or
3
anxiety does not seem to warrant the same treatment within the journal. It does not seem ethical
to distinguish pain so generally; many who suffer from life long depression may consider them
selves “terminally ill”. Dr. Emanuel does not define anguish however she does describe the
feelings of anguish from what she knows but only from the doctor’s point of view. Dr. Emanuel
states, “ What is often diagnosed as untreatable pain is inadequately treated pain which can be
relieved” (Emanuel, 1998, 73). She is denoting those who chose euthanasia and doctor assisted
suicide have not exacerbated all their other options before death. Although, not everything that
makes a person feel better comes from a pill. For example, Vicodin is a heavy pain reliever but it
may not relieve the pain of the memory that stalks your conscious.
Within the journal Edmund D. Pellegrino M.D questions how much does anguish and
frustration compared to pain affect the decision to commit euthanasia or doctor assisted suicide
(Emanuel, 1988, 74). Frustration can warrant the choice for death; an individual can only fight
for so long without mentally giving up. Frustration may be an immediate reaction but it can
prolong and eventually become depression. A doctor cannot prove why the patient is choosing
death if it is because of anguish or because of pain and because of the lack of proof euthanasia
and doctor assisted suicide goes against the Hippocratic oath (Emanuel, 1998, 74. Manuel states
Dr. Pellegrino’s ethical explanation, “It is an injustice to offer these patients assisted suicide or
euthanasia or options when much more can be offered” (Emanuel, 1998, 76).
Doctors and physicians cannot look at death as a solution; the medical profession is determined
studying and attempting to solve diseases. The Hippocratic oath is put in place so the medical
field continues to be fair and ethical however, it may not have the best interest for the patient.
Conclusion
4
This is more of an emotional issue for individuals; no one likes the idea of death or losing
a loved one but no one wants to endure immeasurable pain. Pain is immeasurable and that is also
why it becomes an ethical issue; two people can be enduring the same cancer but they have
different pain tolerance and mindsets. These subtle differences can change your outlook on death
or pursuing continuation of life. Euthanasia and doctor assisted suicide seems to be case-by-case
rule. The Supreme Court uses loaded language to determine if it is considered a liberty.
However, when professional medical physicians discuss euthanasia and doctor assisted suicide it
seems to be the patient’s perception of their pain and anguish that leads to their chosen death.
Euthanasia and doctor assisted will continue to be an ethical argument because there are to many
reasons for it and against it. Oddly enough it should be a case-by-case basis but if legalization
did occur there could be an overwhelming of euthanasia and doctor assisted suicide as a reason
for death. Only time and new developments in science may change or redefine one true just
decision on euthanasia and doctor assisted suicide.
5
References
ACLU Amicus Brief in Vacco v. Quill, Supreme Court of the United States (Amicus brief in
Vacco v. Quil, 1996).
Emanuel, L. (1998). Regulating how we die: The ethical, medical, and legal issues surrounding
physician-assisted suicide. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
Neufeldt, V. (1988). Webster's New World dictionary of American English (3rd college ed.).
New York: Webster's New World.
6