Euthanasia: Is it Murder?

Whether you consider Euthanasia murder or mercy may depend on whether or not you are the one being euthanized. As a health care worker I can tell you that this is an ethical and moral confusion already going on in the American health care system.
What is euthanasia? Well the Robert Powell Center for Medical Ethics gives us the following definitions; Euthanasia: Euthanasia is the intentional killing by act or omission of a dependent human being for his or her alleged benefit.

Voluntary euthanasia: When the person who is killed has requested to be killed.

Non-voluntary: When the person who is killed made no request and gave no consent.

Involuntary euthanasia: When the person who is killed made an expressed wish to the contrary.

Assisted suicide: Someone provides an individual with the information, guidance, and means to take his or her own life with the intention that they will be used for this purpose. When it is a doctor who helps another person to kill themselves it is called "physician assisted suicide."

Euthanasia By Action: Intentionally causing a person's death by performing an action such as by giving a lethal injection.

Euthanasia By Omission: Intentionally causing death by not providing necessary and ordinary (usual and customary) care or food and water.

Remember the Terry Shiver case? If this had been done in any setting other then a medical one there would have been a homicide investigation. It did make things convenient for her husband who could have just as well divorced her but then wouldn't have received any financial gain from the settlement money that was left.
In looking at these definitions we can only conclude that involuntary and non-voluntary euthanasia is definitely murder! Voluntary euthanasia is still legally murder or manslaughter.
Remember that just because some one who is feeling depressed today says " I wish I were dead " or " I don't want to live this way" doesn't mean that they won't feel differently tomorrow.

There is also an ethical and moral dilemma because of advanced technology. life is being prolonged and preserved beyond what could be done even 20 years ago. The question is should this be done just because we can? I believe that it should be dealt with on a case by case basis. The main determining factor should be the wishes of the patient. Many times a patient will have an advanced directive stating that they do or do not want advanced life support but family members will over-ride the wishes of the patient . This happens because they feel that what the patient wants is less important then what they want. Hospitals and physician's have been sued for following the advanced directives when what the patient wanted doesn't coincide with what the family members want. Even though these may not be successful litigation, just fighting for the right to abide by the patients wishes can be extremely costly to the hospital and physician.

On the other side of the coin we have the financial aspect. Many times right and wrong fly out the window because of financial concerns. There are times when a next of kin may stand to gain financially from the death of the patient. When this is a factor we face the problem of whether or not decision's are being made in the best interest of the patient. Also we have the problem of hospital ethics committees trying to determine whether one person has more of a right to live then another and also whether it is cost effective to continue life support even though the patient has stated they want everything done to keep them alive. The insurance companies also have a financial stake in determining what they want to cover for their clients medical needs.
There are still so many questions regarding the euthanasia issue such as, is titrating narcotics to the point of over dose considered euthanasia when removing a patient from life support such as mechanical ventilation? In my opinion it's murder. Is actively denying life support such as renal dialysis to someone because you believe it will not give them what you consider an acceptable quality of life considered euthanasia?

There are way to many gray areas for any resolution to the question of whether or not euthanasia is murder or mercy. I believe that this is going to be a legal, moral and ethical dilemma for a long long time. In my opinion it is always best to err on the side of life. The following excerpt from Koop, The Memoirs of America's Family Doctor by C. Everett Koop M.D. pretty much sums up my point of view on the issue of euthanasia.

"... we must be wary of those who are too willing to end the lives of the elderly and the ill. If we ever decide that a poor quality of life justifies ending that life, we have taken a step down a slippery slope that places all of us in danger. There is a difference between allowing nature to take its course and actively assisting death. The call for euthanasia surfaces in our society periodically, as it is doing now under the guise of "death with dignity" or assisted suicide. Euthanasia is a concept, it seems to me, that is in direct conflict with a religious and ethical tradition in which the human race is presented with " a blessing and a curse, life and death," and we are instructed '...therefore, to choose life." I believe 'euthanasia' lies outside the commonly held life-centered values of the West and cannot be allowed without incurring great social and personal tragedy. This is not merely an intellectual conundrum. This issue involves actual human beings at risk..." - C. Everett Koop, M.D.

* *taken from the book KOOP, The Memoirs of America's Family Doctor by C. Everett Koop, M.D., Random House, 1991.