euthanasia in America, Science, College Term Papers.com


		Data Bases
		• Custom Term Papers • Free Term Papers • Free Research Papers • Free Essays • Free Book Reports • Plagiarism?

		Links
		• Top 100 Term Paper Sites • Top 25 Essay Sites • Top 50 Essay Sites • Search 97,000 Papers @ DirectEssays.com • Search 101,000 Papers @ ExampleEssays.com • Search 90,000 Papers @ MegaEssays.com

		Free Essays
		• Term Paper Sites • Chuck III's Free Essays • Free College Essays • TermPaperSites.com • My Term Papers • Get Free Essays • Essay World • Planet Papers

Search Lots of Essays

Back to Subjects - Science

euthanasia in America

euthanasia in America Euthanasia in the United States The frail woman lay on her bed, chatting quietly with her grandchild. They had spent the day talking about unicorns, Cinderella, and “the olden days.” As they conversed, the woman’s daughter looked on. She nodded to the doctor, and by the end of the evening the joyful spirit of old woman was gone. Euthanasia is a practice that has become more common than realized in the United States. Various states in the Union have tried to legalize euthanasia within the past few years. Those states include Colorado, Florida, Maine, Michigan, New York, Washington, California and Oregon. North Carolina, Utah and Wyoming do not necessarily ban physician-assisted suicide. Euthanasia is criminalized in the remaining states (Johnson 25). Oregon is the only state that allows euthanasia under tightly controlled circumstances. (Johnson 26.) There are several bills that are circulating through U.S. courts and legislatures for and against euthanasia (Matas 14b). Even though euthanasia has a growing base of legal support in the United States, it is murder. Oregon has had an ongoing battle about euthanasia since 1994. Citizens in the state approved Ballot Measure 16 in the 1994 November elections that would have legalized euthanasia under limited conditions (Oregon 2). The National Right to Life Committee, sponsored by the Roman Catholic Church and other Christian denominations, obtained a court injunction to delay the implementation of the measure. In the meantime, the measure was not enacted (Johnson 30). The Oregon Medical Association originally took no stand on the matter but later came out against it because of what was considered legal flaws (Oregon 4). Conservatives within the Oregon government were forced to approve the legislation due to the June 1997 second public referendum. The referendum was upheld by 61% of adults in Oregon (Oregon 5-6). A Right to Life lawyer named Annette Patterson said: “It’s becoming the abortion issue of the next century and just as nasty. Yet it is even more important because how we die concerns everyone (Johnson 31).” There is a strong element of truth in this statement. Even though a miniscule percentage of people would ever request assistance in dying, to legalize “controlled” euthanasia would create a wide doorway for open and uncontrolled physician-assisted suicide (Meier 37). Oregon’s Death with Dignity law, effective since November 4, 1997, did exactly that (Oregon 41). God wants the sanctity of life to be upheld at every cost, no matter the circumstances surrounding the issue. In our modern world, people only think of themselves and their own selfish desires, not necessarily for the good of another’s life. To love someone is to help that person improve the condition of life, not destroy it because it was a personal choice. In Matthew 24:12, it states that “And because iniquity shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold (Matthew). ” America has become as selfish nation that harbors sin, and is therefore looking for a way to eliminate those who need her help the most. The Death with Dignity law is based off Netherlands’ laws on euthanasia enforcement and regulations (Oregon 52). It is now the basis for many stateside proposals, such as California’s, on euthanasia (Johnson 33). It has several requirements, such as a waiting time period and oral requests made to two doctors. It is only available to terminally ill patients. A patient must fulfill all of the criteria before the prescription for death is given. But the requirements are actually vague and easy to bypass. It does not necessarily guard patients from acting on whims since the waiting period for the prescription is only fifteen days (Meier 42). These flimsy requirements give way to allowing people to destroy the plan that God intended for their life. In Isaiah 49:15, God declares that “…I have graven thee upon the palms of my hands; thy walls are continually before me (Isaiah). ” Not only did God create us, He ordained every second of our lives. For a person to take a life is deny another from reaching his full potential that God planned. Within one month after the law passed, Thomas Constantine, the administrator of the federal Drug Enforcement Agency wrote a policy statement. He stated that prescribing drugs to help terminally ill patients kill themselves would be a violation of the Controlled Substances Act. Oregon’s physicians’ prescription writing authority could be canceled if found in violation of the policy (Oregon 53). The issue resurfaced on March 26, 1998, when an eighty-year-old woman died from a lethal dose of barbiturates prescribed by her doctor (Meier 43). Bob Castagna, spokesperson for the Oregon Catholic Conference said: “This is a tragic and sad day for Oregon and the United States. Assisted suicide has begun in the state of Oregon to our profound regret and sorrow. May God have mercy on all of us (Johnson 32). ” Attorney Janet Reno reversed Constantine’s ruling by mid-1998. She stated “that doctors who use the law to prescribe lethal drugs to terminally-ill patients will not be prosecuted… the drug laws were intended to block illegal trafficking in drugs and did not cover situations like the Oregon suicide law (Oregon 54). ” Attorney General John Ashcroft recently made an announcement that Oregon’s law on physician-assisted suicide is legally wrong according to federal laws. He said that the Oregon euthanasia law should be stopped immediately after November 6, 2001(NBC). He ruled in on the side of the Oregon Right to Life, but the government of Oregon has stated that they will appeal the policy in court. He has reverted back to Constantine’s ruling (NBC). In the meantime, doctors will be allowed to continue the euthanasia procedures under state law (Hagen). The number of doctors who are willing to assist patients in euthanasia is astounding. Forty-one percent of doctors who were surveyed by a medical journal stated that they would aid a terminally ill patient to commit suicide. Thankfully, only four percent confessed that they had helped a patient die within a six-month period (Meier 45). Dr. Ryan Hagan Sr., a psychiatrist in Oregon, said that he has counseled numerous patients who have requested euthanasia only to back out of the decision within a few days. While Oregon’s politicians tend to make the law seen “dignified,” most often he encounters patients who are scared of their situations. He said that many feel pressured to make the decision by others or either the person is in a state of depression. He fears that many patients make rash decisions on death and therefore terminate their lives without being properly informed by doctors. He feels that the law opens the door for many to needlessly end their lives before their due time (Hagan). The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1997 that the average American does not have the right to physician-assisted suicide. The unanimous decision also covered that Washington’s and New York’s bans on euthanasia were constitutional. On the other hand, it did not rule whether or not it is legal for a state to have laws that allowed it, therefore letting Oregon off the hook for the time being (Matas 17). In October 1999, the House of Representatives passed the Pain Relief Promotion Act. It is a bill that would legally criminalize a physician if a pain medication dosage is above what is needed to relieve pain. The Senate rejected the bill, and it is in the process of being revised for a future vote (Ruggless-Ash). California also recently tried to legalize euthanasia, but the people of California voted against it (Johnson 33). Although euthanasia has a growing amount of legal support throughout the country, it is murder. Dr. Hagan stated, “ If America turns a blind eye to the killing of our terminally-ill patients, then what will happen next? Requested euthanasia will only open the door to other medical evils. Euthanasia is a process that affects everyone because all of us have a grandparent or friend who could be candidate. And euthanasia is the last option that I would want someone like my father thinking about. Actually, I rather have him not thinking about it at all (Hagan). ” In Jeremiah 1:5, God states “Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you… (Jeremiah). ” God has an individual plan for each human being, one that is as unique as the person himself. To destroy it prematurely is to put an end to God’s work in a life. Bibliography: Works Cited Hagan, Ryan. Phone interview by Malik Reeves. November 11, 2001. 6:07-6:21 PM CT. Isaiah 49:15. The Bible. King James Version, 1994. Jeremiah 1:5. The Bible. New King James Version, 2001. Johnson, Jeff. “Doctor-assisted Suicide is not Rare in the United States.” Reuters News August 2001: 25-26, 30-33. Matas, Robert. “Supreme Court Rules Out Euthanasia.” Herald. 27 June 1997: 14b-18. Matthew 24:12. The Bible. King James Version, 1994. Meier, Diane. “Euthanasia: A Physician’s Viewpoint.” Mount Sinai Medical Journal. New York, June 2001: 37, 40-45. NBC News. Attorney General John Ashcroft. NBC, New York & Los Angeles. November 6, 2001. “Oregon’s Death with Dignity Act: Annual Report 2000.” Oregon Health Division. Portland: Hill, June 2000: 1-5, 40-68. Ruggless-Ash, Angela. “ Pain Relief Promotion Act Passes House.” CQ Researcher. Urbana: Physician’s Forum, July 1999.

Word Count: 1402