Euthanasia

Euthanasia derives from a compound of two Greek words meaning “good death.” It involves the idea of [Page 150]“dying well,” that is, of avoiding or shortening suffering and instead implementing a relatively painless passage into death. Most expressions of euthanasia involve the idea of the assistance of another individual, usually a physician.

Euthanasia is most often used in reference to the hastening of the death, or “mercy killing,” of a severely ill individual. Various terms, however, have been developed to more clearly identify the different categories involved in the cessation of life. Among these are the following: passive euthanasia, active euthanasia, active voluntary euthanasia, and active involuntary euthanasia. There is also the use of palliative care, which involves the management of pain and discomfort without curative medical care; however, this may involve the use of pain management that can hasten the death of the individual. This, however, is not considered euthanasia.

More specifically, passive euthanasia involves allowing the cessation of life by the termination of life support medical procedures, such as use of hydration and gastronomy tubes. Active euthanasia refers to the deliberate cessation of life of a suffering patient, but not someone who simply does not want to live anymore due to stress, emotional fatigue, or severe life conditions that make living “unbearable.” Active voluntary euthanasia involves the use of some lethal agent to end the life of a mentally competent suffering patient who seeks the assistance of a physician to complete the act. Active involuntary euthanasia refers to the intervention of a physician to terminate the life of a suffering patient without the patient's informed consent. Most forms of euthanasia involve controversy. Much debate has occurred over the “right” of individuals to die and the circumstances under which society will allow cessation of life.

The debate is ongoing and intense, whether it has to do with Dr. Jack Kevorkian (“Dr. Death”) espousing the decriminalization of assisted suicide, which he views as an “honorable medical service”; the request of a patient to forgo life-sustaining treatment; or the asserted constitutionality of an individual's “right to die.” Central considerations are traditional religious doctrines, philosophical attitudes toward the value and meaning of life, and the social/moral taboo against suicide, assisted suicide, or being involved in some way in causing the death of another person. The following is a brief overview of some of the main areas of controversy.