NCJ Number
141845
Journal
Trial Volume: 29 Issue: 3 Dated: (March 1993) Pages: 32-34,36-38
Date Published
1993
Length
6 pages
Annotation
This analysis of the debate regarding passive and active euthanasia concludes that although the distinction that many commentators have made between terminating life support and using to external methods of causing death is undesirable, it is a distinction that has become an integral part of medicolegal considerations.
Abstract
Although ballot initiatives supporting active euthanasia in both Washington and California had strong support in early public opinion polls, both were defeated. Media coverage of suicides assisted by Michigan pathologist Jack Kevorkian may have affected the outcome in Washington. Despite the defeat of these measures, support for active euthanasia has been gradually growing. Two sets of beliefs are in conflict in the discussions of death, dying, and euthanasia. We want to respect patients' wishes, relieve suffering, and put an end to excessively burdensome and seemingly futile medical treatment. However, we shrink from the concept of a life not worth living and want to affirm the supreme value of life and the principle that the law protects all life. In addition, distinction between deaths caused by human action and those caused by the processes of nature is increasingly unclear. Furthermore, many physicians fail to use means now available to relieve virtually all pain. Nevertheless, the current approach may be a pragmatic and defensible way to achieve a compromise in our society's struggle to preserve as many traditional restraints against killing as we can consistent with taking a humane approach toward seriously ill patients. 40 reference notes