In an episode of House, an elderly medical researcher who falls ill requests Dr. House and his diagnostic team to end his life.  The rest of the episode consists of House and his team trying to diagnose his illness and dealing with the ethics of whether or not it is ok to end the old man’s life.  Despite the inconsistencies between TV and the real world, many doctors have been asked by terminally-ill patients to help end their lives.  This act is called euthanasia.  Euthanasia, or physician-assisted suicide, is an ethical issue that has been debated for thousands of years, and future physicians should be aware of it, as well as be prepared to respond when asked by a patient to help them die.

Euthanasia, or physician-assisted suicide, is when a physician helps a terminally ill patient end his or her life.  Euthanasia can be divided into two classifications: active and passive euthanasia.   

Passive euthanasia is when a terminally ill patient is removed from life-saving measures.  In 2005, euthanasia became a national headline when Terri Schiavo, a patient diagnosed as being in a persistent vegetative state, had her feeding tube removed.  Terri’s parents desired treatment that could possibly help Terri regain some function, while her husband believed that allowing Terri to die was in accordance with her last wish.  Removal of Terri Schiavo’s feeding tube is an example of passive euthanasia, though the term can include the patients themselves requesting to be removed from life-saving measures.

Active euthanasia involves the use of a deadly substance to end life.  A possible example would include the famous Dr. Jack Kevorkian.  During the 90’s, Dr. Kevorkian helped over one hundred terminally-ill patients die.  After consulting with his dying patients, Dr. Kevorkian would attach them to a euthanasia device, and the patient would push a button that would release life-ending chemicals.  Later on, a videotape was revealed showing Dr. Kevorkian injecting a patient with a lethal substance.  Both of these life-ending actions are termed as active euthanasia.

Three states, Oregon, Washington, and most recently Montana, allow physicians to help terminally ill patients die.  Currently, as well as in the future, politicians may view euthanasia as a means of healthcare cost containment.  Here is a list, though incomplete, of pros and cons of euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide: 

Pros:

Relief from pain

Relief from low quality of life

Less costly to patient than seeking life-saving methods

Lower healthcare costs

Cons:

A chance that life could be saved by alternative treatment

Certain social groups may be at risk for abuse of euthanasia

Possible harm to a physician’s self-identified role as a healer

Possible slippery slop to legalized murder

(List compiled from www.procon.org)

Article by Philip Ross