One of the biggest controversies of this decade is euthanasia. Euthanasia is killing, killing in the name of compassion and mercy. Euthanasia extends the license of state permitted killing; when permitted, it allows one human being to kill another. Its advocates present euthanasia as a caring, merciful, humane act. Its advocates employ a two-pronged strategy claiming: 1) that it should be "legalized" by the legislature, and 2) that it is a fundamental constitutional right.
There are four types of euthanasia: voluntary and direct, voluntary but indirect, direct but involuntary, and indirect and involuntary. Voluntary and direct euthanasia is chosen and carried out by the patient. Voluntary but indirect euthanasia is chosen in advance. Direct but involuntary euthanasia is done for the patient without his or her request.
Indirect and involuntary euthanasia occurs when a hospital decides that it is time to remove life support. People are killed in war, self-defense and capital punishment. All murder is wrong, but not all killing is murder. Hence, euthanasia is not wrong simply because it is killing. The whole issue is whether or not it is justified killing. The burden of proof is on those who would say, "this particular killing of a human being is justified".
If deliberate killing takes place outside the context of self-defense, the protection of others, a justifiable war or capital punishment of a convicted criminal, convincing constitutional evidence must be ushered to prove such a killing is nonetheless right. In ancient Greece and Rome it was permissible in some situations to help others die. For example, the Greek writer Plutarch mentioned that in Sparta infanticide was practiced on children who lacked "health and vigor". Both Socrates and Plato sanctioned forms of euthanasia in certain cases. Voluntary euthanasia for the elderly was an approved custom in several ancient societies.
Back in the 1970' the Karen Quinlan case was taken all the way up to the U.S. Supreme Court. The Court distinguished between committing suicide (or assisting in that act) and the withdrawal of artificial life support systems. To withdraw artificial supports and let the patient be supported solely by nature is enormously different, said the Court, from deliberately acting to kill innocent life. Each of the States, asserted the Court, has an undeniable interest in the protection and preservation of all human life. And each State has the constitutional authority to proscribe as a crime the intentional killing of innocent human life, regardless of the motives of either the assisting killer or the person wishing to kill his or her self. The Quinlan and Cruz an cases specifically distinguish between the withdrawal of artificial life support systems and the direct killing of a human being, an activity in which all governments have an immediate interest.
The courts have had to deal with a number of rights that are related to euthanasia: 1) The right to reject unwanted medical procedures, 2) The right to commit suicide solely by one's own acts, 3) The right to commit suicide with the assistance of another's, and 4) The right to authorize another to directly and intentionally kill the one seeking death. Euthanasia has been a large issue in the courts during this century. The first doctor that was charged for performing euthanasia was in 1935. Harold Blazer was charged for the death of his daughter. His daughter was a victim of cerebral spinal meningitis. He killed her by placing a handkerchief soaked with chloroform over her face until she died.
He had taken care of her for thirty years. In his trial he was acquitted. The first doctor to be found guilty was Joseph Hass man in 1986. He injected a lethal dose of Demerol into his mother-in-law by the request of her family. He was sentenced to two years probation, fined $10,000, and ordered to perform 400 hours of community service.
The most recent and most controversial euthanasia doctor is Dr. Jack Kevorkian. He was charged with first-degree murder in December of 1990. He connected Janet Adkins, a member of the Hemlock Society (Society in which they support your decision to die and offer support when you are ready to die), to his suicide machine, which allowed her to inject lethal drugs into her body at anytime. He has since then been present at the deaths of more than forty people. A number of legal considerations are involved in the issue of euthanasia.
The state has the right to become very involved in euthanasia cases. The state can specify how frequently someone can sign a euthanasia authorization. The state can also specify that only the individual can decide. Living wills are also a big part in the legal aspects of euthanasia. A living will can express a patient's thoughts towards his future medical treatment. Living wills are legal in forty states.
They allow anyone capable of making decisions to tell the doctor beforehand that they do not wish to be put on life support. The National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws in 1985 adopted the Uniform Rights of the Terminally Ill Act, which serves as model legislation for state laws. Today, patients are entitled to opt for passive euthanasia; that is, to make free and informed choices to refuse life support. Only one state, Oregon, has legalized assisted suicide. The Oregon statute, which went into effect in October 1997, provides that a doctor may prescribe, but not administer, a lethal dose of medication to patient who has less than six months to live. Two doctors must agree that the patient is mentally competent and that the decision was voluntary.
As of April 1999, 23 patients were given drugs under the statute, and 15 of them used the drugs to commit suicide. A report released by Oregon State Health Division reviewing the first year of the law's implementation found that the law was working well and had not been subject to abuse. Why must it be illegal then The Fifth Amendment clearly states: No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb, nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation. It also violates the Fourteenth Amendment which clearly states: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law, which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. With these amendments in mind, if one has the right to life doesn't he or she have the right to death If one is suffering and doesn't want to live shouldn't he or she be able to take his or her own life What if it is financially ruining the family to prolong grandpa or grandma's life.