The debate regarding euthanasia, either active or passive, and the right to physician-assisted suicide has strong proponents on both sides. This paper will look at the definitions of the various practices and discuss the problems and issues arising from each side of the debate. It will also look at the two sides of the issue individually, and look at the perspective taken by those on either side.
There are four ways in which the lives of the terminally ill can be brought to an end (Quill, Lo and Brock, 1997, p. 2099). The patients can voluntarily stop eating and drinking, and die from dehydration or starvation. This is considered acceptable by many, but can also lead to abuses if family members deprive those who are ill of nourishment against their will. Terminal sedation is also quite acceptable, and renders the patient unconscious and thus also susceptible to death by dehydration or starvation. Physician-assisted suicide occurs when the physician gives the patient a lethal dose of some medication, but the patient administers it him/herself. Euthanasia occurs when the physician carries out the final act.
The generally agreed upon care for the terminally ill is palliative, but for some patients intolerable suffering still exists. Voluntary cessation of eating and drinking does not challenge current laws, and so is considered by many to be the best alternative. The problem with this approach is that, while it is entirely voluntary, and requires no participation by the physician, it may take weeks for death to occur, and the patient may suffer during this time because he/she may experience excessive thirst and hunger (Quill, Lo, and Brock, 1997, p. 2100). Family members, nurses and doctors may find this situation repugnant. The patient's mental clarity may be lost toward the end, and this may then raise questions about whether the decision is still a voluntary one.
With terminal sedation, the patient is rendered un...