Dhillon 1

Devan Dhillon
Professor Rys
English 102
15 March 2016
Word Count:
The Freedom of Death
"The greatest human freedom is to live, and die, according to one's own desires and
beliefs. The most common desire among those with a terminal illness is to die with some
measure of dignity. From advance directives to physician-assisted dying, [there are many ways
to] provide options for the dying to control their own end-of-life care" ("About Death With
Dignity"). The United States of America has a long-standing and unique bond with freedom;
freedom of speech, religions, marriage, guns, and life. The abortion debate becomes more and
more present as the presidential race heats up every four years, yet the freedom of death is never
discussed. Euthanasia, or more commonly called assisted suicide, has been hiding in the
background of the American media and culture for decades. From Dr. Jack Kevorkian of
Michigan in the late 1990s and early 2000s suffered a public and televised trial, to Brittany
Maynard in 2014 who posted on Facebook that she was going to end her life after losing the
battle to cancer became a viral news item, euthanasia is a subject that divides many people. In
the process, a terminally ill person knows that there is no end other than death. Of course,
treatments can be given to extend life as long as possible, but the question is not time it is pain.
The term euthanasia originally meant only 'good death,' but in modern society it has come to
mean a death free of any anxiety and pain, often brought about through the use of medication.
Most recently, it has come to mean 'mercy killing' -- deliberately putting an end to someone's life

Dhillon 2
in order to spare the individual's suffering (Manning). According to the International Task Force
on Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide, the process is illegal and immoral for many reasons. Most
concisely put, their website states that "the government should not have the right to give one
group of people (doctors) the power to kill another group of people (patients). Activists often
claim that laws against euthanasia and assisted suicide are government mandated suffering. But
this claim would be similar to saying that laws against selling contaminated food are government
mandated starvation (Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide: Frequently Asked Questions). The
logical parallel is flawed because the group applies a very specific question, the assisted death of
terminal ill patients, to a broad population, all people who eat food, which is a flaw called
generalization. In the end, noted cosmologist and physicist, Stephen Hawking, who has suffered
for most of his life and would be considered for this procedure has the better view: "I think those
who have a terminal illness and are in great pain should have the right to choose to end their
lives and those that help them should be free from prosecution. We dont let animals suffer, so
why humans" (Hawking)? By examining the trial of Dr. Jack Kevorkian, the case of Terri
Schiavo, and Brittany Maynard, this essay will research the future steps that can be take to
legalize physician assisted suicide for terminally ill patients.
Euthanasia is not a commonly discussed topic in the American home, until it becomes a
first hand dilemma. With medical innovation, new treatments, and the drug companies always
trying to make a profit, there is more pressure than ever to extend a life, no matter what the cost.
Yet, for drug companies, and even research doctors, a death is a failure where prolonged life is a
success, and they are so hyper focused on increasing their success that they do not look at the
quality of life, but the quantity. Dr. Jack Kevorkian was taken to trial three times and found
innocent by three different juries until 1999, when he was finally convicted of second degree

Dhillon 3
murder and sent to jail for twenty-five years. For Dr. Kevorkian, he believed, much like Dr.
Hawking, that there is a sense of dignity and choice that cannot be denied. If someone is dying,
and there is truly no other option, why suffer? AIDS patients throughout the mid 1980s and late
1990s, when the disease was at its peak, died terrible deaths, painful fits of bodily deterioration.
The academy award winning film, The Dallas Buyers Club, exposed the brutal honesty of how
terrible the disease was. Cancer is no different and those who die form it are being eaten alive
from the insides out. The pain, discomfort, and shame that comes with being in that state is
enough to drive anyone to take their own life. Dr. Kevorkian loved his patients and offered them
an alternative. The first suicide he was involved in was the 1990 death of Jane Adkins, 54, who
suffered from Alzheimer's disease. She died in Dr. Kevorkian's Volkswagen van in Groveland
Oaks Park near Holly, Michigan. Her death was assisted by a 'suicide machine,' built by Dr.
Kevorkian using $30 worth of scrap parts from garage sales and hardware stores at his kitchen
table (Profile: Dr. Death). The way that Dr. Kevorkian got away with the deaths was quite
simple. He built his suicide machine, which resembles and works on the same principle as the
Death Penalty by lethal injection, he orders the medication, inserts the intravenous drips, shows
the patient where the on switch is, where the go button is, then walks away. It is up to the patient
and their family to turn the equipment on and push the button to deliver the chemicals. Thus,
what Dr. Kevorkian was doing was assisting in suicide but not actually committing the act of
murder. The legal reasoning is the same as a gun shop owner who sells a perfectly legal gun to
someone then they go home and shoot themselves. The gun shop owner is not liable because they
were not a part of the decision to die. Dr. Kevorkian often used the same logic; if this is their
choice, this is what they do, but the choice is theirs. After a series of trials, there was no legal
way to hold him accountable for the deaths, until the Central Broadcasting System, CBS, aired

Dhillon 4
an interview on their program 60 Minutes: "On Sunday night, November 22, 1998, viewers of
the CBS television program 60 Minutes watched in horror as Dr. Jack Kevorkian killed fifty-twoyear-old Thomas Youk. Youk, suffering from Lou Gehrig's disease, had asked Kevorkian to end
his life, and Kevorkian complied by injecting him with poison to stop his heart (Jack
Kevorkian). For the court, the videotaping and flaunting that he was still assisting in the deaths
sent them over the edge. Most of America experienced Euthanasia for the first time that evening.
The idea of mercy killing had previously only belonged to the four-legged friends with much
shorter lifespans. Kevorkian's goal in life [was] to overturn America's laws prohibiting both
active euthanasia and assisted suicide (Jack Kevorkian), and his lifes work, including aiding
in the death of nearly 140 people, has opened the discussion legally and morally here in America.
At the same time Dr. Kevorkian was making national news in Michigan, going to jail for
helping people die peacefully, the Florida courts were murdering Terri Schiavo, a woman in a
vegetative state, by not feeding her for days. Terri suffered a massive heart attack, which left her
brain deoxygenated for too long. The result was a coma that lasted for three years (1990-1993) at
which time, her husband Michael signed a do not resuscitate order, which her parents
immediately challenged in court. So what was known about Terri Schiavo's wishes and values?
Since she unfortunately left no written advance directive, the next step would be to meet with her
closest family members and try to understand what she would have wanted under these medical
circumstances if she could have spoken for herself (Quill). Her husband Michael felt that their
discussions at home would indicate that living via feeding tube is not what Terri would have
wanted, and she would support ending life support. On the other side, Terris family felt they
needed to give her body more time since she was breathing on her own, but she had not woken
up. In the end, the right of competent patients to refuse unwanted medical treatment, including

Dhillon 5
artificial hydration and nutrition, is a settled ethical and legal issue in this country based on
the right to bodily integrity. The Schiavo case raises challenging questions about how to define
family and how to proceed if members of the immediate family are not in agreement (Quill).
What made the ruling so controversial is that the court sided with Michael and removed Terris
feeding tube. It took days for her to die of dehydration. The Catholic Church, a still powerful
institution at the time made sure to comment on the cases surfacing all over the world. Dr.
Herbert, a leading medical researcher for the Catholic Church notes:
There is no intellectually honest way to portray what occurred in the Schiavo case as
anything but 'Euthanasia by omission' as Pope John Paul II described it in his 2004
allocution... The 2004 Papal teaching specifically addressed the issue of persistent vegetative
state (PVS) and the moral necessity of providing sustenance as part of basic supportive and
humane care, not extraordinary medical intervention... While it is completely understandable
and appropriate that people wish to be compassionate to those who suffer with PVS...ending
their lives by dehydrating them to death is not a morally licit way to do so... I feel the duty to
reaffirm strongly that the intrinsic value and personal dignity of every human being do not
change, no matter what the concrete circumstances of his or her life. A man, even if seriously
ill or disabled in the exercise of his highest functions, is and always will be a man, and he
will never become a 'vegetable' or an 'animal'... (Hubert).
The morality again comes to light. The lawyers for Kevorkian used this case numerous times to
defend his actions. In Kevorkians case, his patients died within minutes, and because he assisted
them he was guilty. Yet, Terris death was approved by the courts of Florida and it was painful,
waiting days for her body to dehydrate. Imagine watching a body waste away in front of you,
unable to wake up, unable to cry out in pain, and all this vegetative person can do is shrivel in

Dhillon 6
front of their loved ones. In Kevorkians cases, his patients could get their affairs in order, say
goodbye to those they love, and die peacefully in a sleep-like state with no pain or shame. This
leads to the fundamental questions surrounding Euthanasia; who can legally take their own life,
who can or cannot assist in the choice, and why should the world care if one people make the
choice for themselves?
Just over a year ago, 29-year-old Brittany Maynard became the poster face for the continued
debate. Since the Kevorkian trials, there have been five states who passed Death with Dignity
acts that legalize medical suicide if a competent patient has made the choice. This is a direct
result of the overbearing governmental influence in Terri Schiavos case, which underscored the
nation's deep distaste for what many regard as overbearing government intrusion, various polls
show (Legacy for Life). Brittanys story is slightly different in that she was a normally
functioning young adult, active, physically fit, a newlywed and devoted wife. She lived with her
husband Dan in California when she was diagnosed with terminal and aggressive brain cancer. In
her words, Brittany wrote because my tumor is so large, doctors prescribed full brain radiation.
I read about the side effects: The hair on my scalp would have been singed off. My scalp would
be left covered with first-degree burns. My quality of life, as I knew it, would be gone
(Maynard). This turned into a very public debate about the quality of live versus the quantity of
life. In her case, because she was so young Brittany faced an even more difficult task: Because
the rest of my body is young and healthy, I am likely to physically hang on for a long time even
though cancer is eating my mind. I probably would have suffered in hospice care for weeks or
even months. And my family would have had to watch that. I did not want this nightmare
scenario for my family, so I started researching death with dignity (Maynard). Oregon,
Washington and Vermont are the three states with active legal protection. California has recently

Dhillon 7
passed the law but it is not in effect, and Montana allows physician assisted suicide, following
the process of Dr. Kevorkians chemical model. Since she did not live in an area where she could
legally make the choice, she uprooted her life and moved to Oregon, accepting the financial
responsibility of earning residency, landownership, drivers license, healthcare, and doctor
selection to pass the strict legal requirements. Once she did, she found a sense of peace; It is an
end-of-life option for mentally competent, terminally ill patients with a prognosis of six months
or less to live. It would enable me to use the medical practice of aid in dying: I could request and
receive a prescription from a physician for medication that I could self-ingest to end my dying
process if it becomes unbearable (Maynard). Brittany did end her own life through the Oregon
Death with Dignity Act, and the political world took note as Facebook and other social media
outlets flooded with new forms of public opinion.
One such opinion was the direct comparison of America to the Dutch government. In the
Netherlands, the governments legalized physician assisted suicide as a viable, and health care
approved method, of treating terminal illnesses. Since they passed the law, actual suicides have
decreased, but the law has been applied to non-traditional cases. This opens the door for the
slippery slope argument. If you legalize physician-assisted suicide for terminally ill patients,
could it also be applied to other patients, such as those who are over ninety years old with no
family, no money, and no will to live? In some of the senate hearings, certain advocates against
Euthanasia said, the slippery slope is very real. As Dr. Gunning put it, the Dutch have proved
that once killing is accepted as a solution for one problem, tomorrow it will be seen as the
solution for hundreds of problems. Once we accept the killing of terminally ill patients, as did the
Dutch, we will invariably, over time, accept the killing of chronically ill patients, depressed
patients, and ultimately perhaps, even children (Smith). However, the logic resented here is very

Dhillon 8
flawed. As a rebuttal, Kings College in London held a symposium, and one of their speakers,
Professor Penney Lewis, notes that the critics who rely on this slippery slope argument often
omit two important elements, thereby using flawed logic. First, the argument is only effective
against legalization if it is legalization, which causes the slippery slope. Second, it is only
effective if it is used comparatively, to show that the slope is more slippery in the Netherlands
than it is in jurisdictions which have not legalized assisted suicide or euthanasia
(Lewis). Professor Lewis makes his claims based on the intent of humanity. As long as the choice
remains an individual one, allowed only to those who are terminally ill, then the slippery slope
will never begin. It is in the wording and implementation of the law that protects it from the
logical fallacy.
In summation, after examining the cases of Dr. Jack Kevorkian, Terri Schiavo, and Brittany
Maynard, this essay exposes the truth that in todays medical world, there is an emphasis on
quantity rather than quality of life. By passing more legislation, like Oregons Death with
Dignity Act, patients who are suffering from terrible illnesses and have reached a point of
terminality should have more choices. Continue trying and suffering, or accept the inevitability
of death and die with dignity. Each person has a sense of freedom they are born with, and the law
should enable them to die with the same kind of freedom. Choice is a fundamental part of
medicine, and the medical debates about vaccinations, experimental treatment, holistic
approaches, and whatnot all point to the patient choice. Why then, is the death of the patient not
as respected? Dr. Kevorkian suffered publically, Terri Schiavo suffered for days as her body
shriveled up from dehydration, and Brittany Maynard is the voice of a new generation asking the
world to stop looking at me as a number; these people are all people with a mind, a heart, and a
will to live or die with the dignity all others should respect.

Dhillon 9
Works Cited
"About Death With Dignity." Death with Dignity. 2009. Web. 15 March 2016.
Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide: Frequently Asked Questions." The International Task Force
on Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide. 21 Jan 2009. Web. 15 Mar 2016.
Hawking, Stephen, PhD. An Interview with Stephen Hawking on Life. British Broadcasting
Corporation. 17 Sept 2013. Web. 15 Mar 2016.
Hubert, J.P., Jr., MD. "Fr. Richard McBrien and Others Mislead Catholic Public: Allege Schiavo
Feeding Tube Removal OK" Cathoic Online. 8 Mar 2006. Web. 15 Mar 2016.
Jack Kevorkian. American Decades 1990-1999. 2 Feb 2008. Gale Database. Web. 15 Mar
2016.
"Legacy For Life and Death Schiavo Case Likely to Affect End-of-Life Discussions - At Home,
in Church and in Government." The Orange County Register. 1 Apr 2005. Web. 15 Mar
2016.
Lewis, Penney. The Empirical Slippery Slope. Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics. Kings
College, London. 2007. Web. 15 Mar 2016.
Manning, Michael. Euthanasia and Physician-Assisted Suicide: Killing or Caring? Oxford
Press. 1998. Print.
Profile: Dr. Death. British Broadcasting Corporation. 26 Nov 1998. Web. 15 Mar. 2016.
Quill, Timothy MD. "Terri Schiavo - A Tragedy Compounded" New England Journal of
Medicine. 21 Apr 2005. Web. 15 Mar 2016.
Smith, Wesley. Individual Testimony. The United States Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on
the Constitution, Civil Rights, & Property Rights. 25 May 2006. Web. 15 Mar 2016.