2008 Woodie Awards
Terminally ill have right to end lives
Matthew Adair
Issue date: 6/6/07 Section: Opinions
This past Friday brought back into the news a name most people thought they would never hear again. Jack Kevorkian, the former doctor found guilty in 1999 of assisting in the death of Thomas Youk, a 52-year-old man in the final stages of Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, also known as Lou Gerhig's disease, was released from prison with the sworn agreement that, as part of his parole, he will never assist in another patient's suicide again.
This has done little to blunt Kevorkian's attitude towards physician-assisted suicide, who, in an interview with The New York Times, blasted federal and state governments for doing little to nothing to address the matter of assisted suicide, and criticized those states, including Oregon, the only state to have any law concerning assisted suicide, for being insufficient in dealing with terminally ill individuals who require a doctor's aid in ending their lives.
The eight years that Kevorkian has spent in prison has seen us make much noise about life, death and decisions regarding them, the most recent and infamous example being the national debate that had erupted over Terri Schaivo and her feeding tube. Officials with both the state of Florida and the federal government, all the way up to George W. Bush, were more than eager to step in and decide for everyone who had the right to choose whether the 41-year-old woman should live or not.
The government game of political football that ensued on behalf of Schaivo's parents was one of the biggest disgraces the nation has suffered in years, on several counts. There is, of course, the appalling Schaivo memo which had Brian Darling advising then-senator Mel Martinez (R-Florida) to use the medical case as a way to appeal to voters in the upcoming congressional elections.
There is also the fact that federal officials attempted to intervene in a case that it had little to no medical knowledge about, as demonstrated by our own Senator Bill Frist. It is presumptuous to the point of naked arrogance to suggest that a bunch of talking heads have both the knowledge and the empathy to handle such a deeply sensitive matter as the question of whether or not to continue another person's life.
Worst of all, however, is the matter brought to light by Kevorkian's statements to The New York Times. Our government is quick to make decisions for a woman physically incapable of thinking on her own and intervene in an argument between family members. When it comes to allowing a person to decide what to do with their body when it is no longer capable of supporting the conscious self, however, Congress and the states remain almost completely silent.
According to U.S. law, passive euthanasia is legal. We can refuse any medical treatment, and may commit suicide without assistance from a medical professional if we wish. So long as we are the only one involved in our death, the state is willing to look the other way and allow us to end our life when we choose to do so.
Yet, what happens if a medical condition prevents us from ending our life, or we do not have the means to do so painlessly? Kevorkian contends this was the motivation behind his work, arguing that the Ninth Amendment gave him the right to help others end their life if that was what they wanted. While the Constitution does not explicitly grant us the right to decisions regarding our own bodies, it does not deny it, and it cannot be assumed that our government can and should make these decisions for us.
It is a similar argument to that offered by abortion rights activists. Just as a pregnant woman ought to have the right to ultimately decide what is best for her and the developing fetus in her womb, because that fetus and the reproductive organs it is growing in are part of her, an individual whose body is slowly breaking down due to a terminal illness should have the final say in what happens to that body and how long they wish to endure the illness that will end their life, because that body, regardless of the condition it is in, is their own property.
Regardless of the moral or religious tone of the current government majority, it is not the right of the state to dictate to its citizens what they are to believe is morally proper when it comes to what we can and cannot do to our bodies. It can legislate to try and protect us from harm, or establish agencies and services to fight against diseases or toxins, but it is needlessly and offensively obtrusive for the government to tell us when we can or cannot begin and end our lives.
The most fitting part of all of this is that Kevorkian himself is dying from Hepatitis C, which he contracted while testing blood transfusions being given to U.S. soldiers during the Vietnam War. Regardless of what one thinks of the methods he practiced, surely, we can all agree that Kevorkian and many like him should have the right to take their final bow and end their life on their own terms, and not those of micromanaging government or an impersonally, uncaring disease.
Matthew Adair is a senior art education major and can be reached at matt.adair@gmail.com.
This has done little to blunt Kevorkian's attitude towards physician-assisted suicide, who, in an interview with The New York Times, blasted federal and state governments for doing little to nothing to address the matter of assisted suicide, and criticized those states, including Oregon, the only state to have any law concerning assisted suicide, for being insufficient in dealing with terminally ill individuals who require a doctor's aid in ending their lives.
The eight years that Kevorkian has spent in prison has seen us make much noise about life, death and decisions regarding them, the most recent and infamous example being the national debate that had erupted over Terri Schaivo and her feeding tube. Officials with both the state of Florida and the federal government, all the way up to George W. Bush, were more than eager to step in and decide for everyone who had the right to choose whether the 41-year-old woman should live or not.
The government game of political football that ensued on behalf of Schaivo's parents was one of the biggest disgraces the nation has suffered in years, on several counts. There is, of course, the appalling Schaivo memo which had Brian Darling advising then-senator Mel Martinez (R-Florida) to use the medical case as a way to appeal to voters in the upcoming congressional elections.
There is also the fact that federal officials attempted to intervene in a case that it had little to no medical knowledge about, as demonstrated by our own Senator Bill Frist. It is presumptuous to the point of naked arrogance to suggest that a bunch of talking heads have both the knowledge and the empathy to handle such a deeply sensitive matter as the question of whether or not to continue another person's life.
Worst of all, however, is the matter brought to light by Kevorkian's statements to The New York Times. Our government is quick to make decisions for a woman physically incapable of thinking on her own and intervene in an argument between family members. When it comes to allowing a person to decide what to do with their body when it is no longer capable of supporting the conscious self, however, Congress and the states remain almost completely silent.
According to U.S. law, passive euthanasia is legal. We can refuse any medical treatment, and may commit suicide without assistance from a medical professional if we wish. So long as we are the only one involved in our death, the state is willing to look the other way and allow us to end our life when we choose to do so.
Yet, what happens if a medical condition prevents us from ending our life, or we do not have the means to do so painlessly? Kevorkian contends this was the motivation behind his work, arguing that the Ninth Amendment gave him the right to help others end their life if that was what they wanted. While the Constitution does not explicitly grant us the right to decisions regarding our own bodies, it does not deny it, and it cannot be assumed that our government can and should make these decisions for us.
It is a similar argument to that offered by abortion rights activists. Just as a pregnant woman ought to have the right to ultimately decide what is best for her and the developing fetus in her womb, because that fetus and the reproductive organs it is growing in are part of her, an individual whose body is slowly breaking down due to a terminal illness should have the final say in what happens to that body and how long they wish to endure the illness that will end their life, because that body, regardless of the condition it is in, is their own property.
Regardless of the moral or religious tone of the current government majority, it is not the right of the state to dictate to its citizens what they are to believe is morally proper when it comes to what we can and cannot do to our bodies. It can legislate to try and protect us from harm, or establish agencies and services to fight against diseases or toxins, but it is needlessly and offensively obtrusive for the government to tell us when we can or cannot begin and end our lives.
The most fitting part of all of this is that Kevorkian himself is dying from Hepatitis C, which he contracted while testing blood transfusions being given to U.S. soldiers during the Vietnam War. Regardless of what one thinks of the methods he practiced, surely, we can all agree that Kevorkian and many like him should have the right to take their final bow and end their life on their own terms, and not those of micromanaging government or an impersonally, uncaring disease.
Matthew Adair is a senior art education major and can be reached at matt.adair@gmail.com.
Viewing Comments 1 - 1 of 1
Daniel Bridges
posted 6/12/07 @ 12:03 PM CST
Too long, didn't read. Legally, yes, you should have the freedom to kill yourself.
That does not mean you have the right to. To kill yourself is to fully and completely reject existence and the life (and all the blessings) God gave you. (Continued…)
Post a Comment