Assisted Suicide in America

In the spring of 2011, a doctor named Lawrence Egbert was acquitted of murder charges in Arizona, where he assisted with the suicide of a mentally-unstable woman. Egbert, popularly known as the “new Doctor Death” is a director of the Final Exit Network, a website that advises people on how to take their own lives. Over the years, he claims to have helped with over 300 suicides. The rationale behind the site is that its clients are undergoing immense suffering from cancers and diseases. Doctors like Egbert are merely doing their part to ease suffering and help patients die in a respectful and dignified manner. But are services like this justified in hastening the death of patients?

 Dr. Lawrence Egbert

Physician-assisted suicide is legal in only three states, Oregon, Washington, and Montana; the requirements, however, are extremely strict. For instance, patients must be diagnosed with a terminal disease and must have less than six months to live. In most other US states, assisted suicide is illegal and viewed as manslaughter. Assisted suicide covers a morally-ambiguous area of bioethics, and has valid arguments both for and against it. 

Opponents to physician-assisted suicide argue that it will act as a gateway to assisted suicide in less qualified individuals. They fear that once assisted suicide becomes normative, the requirements for it will slowly decrease until anyone can request it, whether they are sick or not. This will result in increased suicide from those who feel vulnerable, such as those suffering from prejudice or depression. 

Another argument is that physicians may persuade patients to commit suicide even if they are initially unwilling. For example, a doctor might suggest assisted suicide for someone who is sick, even if they have a good chance of getting better. This was seen in some of the cases with Dr. Egbert—non-terminal patients were killed despite the fact that they could have lived healthy lives in the future. This is a corruption of power and illustrates that, if put in the wrong hands, assisted suicide can lead to the deaths of many people who do not really want to die.

Dr. Kevorkian, the original "Dr. Death," with one of his assisted suicide machines.

Despite the arguments against it, assisted suicide can be justified in some situations. If a patient is terminally ill and has a very bleak prognosis, it makes sense that he or she would have the option to die with dignity if desired. After all, if they are going to die anyway, they may as well die on their own terms rather than wait for death to take them. It empowers terminal patients at a time when they do not have much else under their control. Likewise, it can be seen as a way for them to stand up against their illness, rather than passively suffering. Participating in assisted suicide also gives the patient and family time to accept the inevitable death. By choosing when to die, it allows the patient to come to peace with death and say final goodbyes to family and friends. This can be viewed as a favorable alternative to a patient suddenly passing without the change to say goodbye. 

As mentioned earlier, in states where assisted suicide is legal, many safeguards are present to ensure a patient is making a rational decision. For one, the patient has to initiate the request; a doctor cannot suggest it. The patient must be of sound mental health to guarantee that there is no clouded judgment. Moreover, the request must be confirmed 15 days later to ensure that the decision was not made hastily or on a whim. Two different doctors must independently diagnose the patient with a terminal illness that will kill them within six months. Finally, the request must be confirmed by two witnesses, one of which must be unrelated to the patient.

With such a strict process and specific requirements, assisted suicide in this manner is markedly different than the service provided by Dr. Egbert. Many of his patients did not meet most of these criteria; for instance, many were suffering from diseases that were not terminal (or at least gave them longer than six months to live). As in the case in Arizona, the patient was in a poor psychological state, and thus could not make an informed decision to die. In some cases, the families of the patients were not even informed that the patient chose to die. When assisted suicide is conducted in such an unregulated and unprofessional way, one can see why Dr. Egbert was tried for manslaughter. 

I agree with the requirements of the legally-approved assisted suicide. I believe that assisted suicide can be used as a last resort in these very specific cases. Ultimately, the decision to partake in physician-assisted suicide must rest with the patients. It is vital that they have full mental health and that they are informed of all possible treatment outcomes. Furthermore, they should not feel any pressure from doctors and must come to the decision on their own. Without such strict requirements, people like Dr. Egbert can abuse the power of a physician to end the lives of innocent people.