TRAN: Voluntary assisted death can be morally right
Many would wish for a quick, painless death as opposed to spending a prolonged amount of time suffering from a terminal condition. Yet, in many places across the U.S. and the world, it can be difficult or even impossible to opt for that path despite terminal diagnoses, with palliative care forced instead.
The debate behind the morality of euthanasia often splits the subject into two distinct categories: active and passive, where the patient is either directly killed (such as with a drug injection) or dies by withheld intervention (like by removing a feeding tube).
The law in the U.S. reflects the same sentiment, as active euthanasia is illegal everywhere, compared to the complete legality of passive euthanasia. But the acts of killing and letting someone die are not truly different, as the physician is in the same moral position when directly killing a patient and when withholding treatment.
For example, after a severe injury that caused a prolonged unconsciousness or coma that lasted for years, the patient may require a ventilator to breathe and would certainly require a water supply and feeding tube. If they lose hope for recovery, the family and medical staff can choose to remove the patient from life support.
From a legal viewpoint, this form of passive euthanasia is acceptable, since the patient's body is dying on its own, and the underlying cause is responsible for the patient's death. But this situation is the same as directly killing the patient. Removing life support leaves the patient to die a slow and painful death — the same way withholding medicine or a cure would. If the patient's body is capable of sustaining itself (with breathing, circulation, etc.), removing life support is starving the patient until they die.
And despite the medical professional actively "pulling the plug" rather than simply withholding a treatment, this is still passive euthanasia. Yet there is little difference between this and allowing the patient to opt for something such as a lethal injection if their condition is truly beyond hope.
Furthermore, while legally acceptable, this termination of life support is morally worse than active euthanasia due to the potentially prolonged dying period.
It is rather universally agreed that a peaceful death is relatively quick and, most importantly, painless, which can be seen by the extensive efforts and debates surrounding proper and humane execution methods.
Given that coma patients may feel pain or other sensations, starving a patient for a period of time that can last a week or two is the complete opposite of a humane death. It could even be argued that this is more akin to torture and, quite naturally, it can be agreed that torture is morally worse than a quick death.
Another situation that illustrates the lack of firm clarity between killing and letting die is assisted suicide, where a doctor helps a patient commit suicide (by request), usually by purposefully providing medicine that the patient can choose to intentionally overdose on to a lethal degree. While this seems nearly identical to active euthanasia, it is legal in 10 states.
These situations blend the line between killing and letting someone die. The physician is providing the knowledge and means that directly lead to the patient killing themself.
The moral responsibility of death may seem distinct: The patient is killing themself, as opposed to the doctor doing so. While the doctor themself may not be directly killing the patient, this can hardly be considered the same as passively letting someone die by withholding treatment — it is quite the opposite. Even with passive euthanasia, the doctor is still providing the means of death.
Legally, assisted suicide and active euthanasia are distinct. Yet, from a moral point of view, they should be viewed as identical. Is there a clear difference between the doctor's and patient's roles in choosing to overdose versus lethal injection? Or between their roles in choosing to terminate treatment?
In any case, the patient is the one taking the action that results in their own death, based on the guidance of the physician. The doctor is causing the patient's death through equivalent acts that are difficult to truly distinguish, even on a semantic basis.
Assisted suicide and active euthanasia allow for a quick and painless death compared to days, or even weeks, of potential suffering from the pain of an incurable disease. While that gained time may be valuable to some, plenty would choose the former option. That is why it should be a choice, rather than forcing people to endure what they do not want.
Letting die is often not morally defensible or preferable to killing, and there are many situations where the moral and practical divide between the two acts is indistinguishable. In end-of-life medicine, the current moral and legal lines between what is allowed and what is not are quite arbitrary and do not meet the goals of medical practice in reducing patient suffering.
Tyler Tran is a sophomore in the School of Arts and Sciences majoring in molecular biology and biochemistry and minoring in medical ethics and health policy, and economics. Tran’s column, “Hung Up” runs on alternate Mondays.
*Columns, cartoons, letters and commentaries do not necessarily reflect the views of the Targum Publishing Company or its staff.
YOUR VOICE | The Daily Targum welcomes submissions from all readers. Letters to the editor must be between 350 and 600 words. Commentaries must be between 600 and 900 words. All authors must include their name, phone number, class year and college affiliation or department to be considered for publication. Please submit via email to oped@dailytargum.com and eic@dailytargum.com to be considered for publication.
