The recent legalization of physician assisted suicide in Washington state once again thrusts the issue to the forefront of American minds. Washington is the second state to legalize physician assisted suicide, the other being Oregon. It is reasonable to be wary of legalizing such a practice, as it deals directly with life and death issues, but in reality, the legalization of physician assisted suicide is necessary. Physician assisted suicide is a matter of personal liberty and so long as certain requirements are met, this right must be afforded to terminally ill patients throughout the United States.
The new legislation in Washington is very similar to the Oregon law which allows for physician assisted suicide. Patients must be 18 or older, terminally ill and have no mental impairment in order to request their doctor to prescribe them lethal drugs. The drugs are self-administered by the patient. In addition, any hospitals and doctors that do not wish to participate in the practice are exempt from being forced to prescribe lethal drugs to terminally ill patients. This law, with its many provisions, provides a safe and reasonable method of allowing terminally ill patients to end their lives on their own terms.
Americans pride themselves in their liberties. The Constitution and the Bills of Rights are revered by many people, and often invoked when people fear their rights are being abused by the government. A substantial benefit of being an American citizen is knowing that there are legal safeguards to government intervention into one’s personal affairs. American life is characterized by protection against attempts to limit freedom, but in the process of dying, freedom is severely limited. Why should people be expected to succumb to painful diseases and terminal conditions based on the progression of their illness, rather than based upon their own convictions?
One might argue that life should always be preserved. This is true in most cases, but when a person has an explicit wish to die and there is no hope by modern medical standards that the person may recover from his illness, there is no reason that the person should be prevented from ending his own life with the advice of a willing medical professional. Most Americans recognize that their life is beholden to no government institution, so there is no reason that the American government should prevent terminally ill patients from seeking the advice and means of willing medical professionals to bring about a peaceful and dignified death.
To the extent that other people are not harmed, personal liberty should be maximized. In the case of physician assisted suicide, no one is harmed so long as the proper requirements (terminal illness, mental competence, etc.) are met and no unwilling third parties are implicated to help in the procedure. Those who find the practice morally reprehensible are not forced to be a part of the process, and they are free to voice their concerns. The family of a terminally ill patient may be negatively impacted by his suicide, but the patient is not choosing to end their life. Rather, they are choosing when and on what terms to end their life, which may in the end provide comfort to a family that will inevitably be struck with grief.
Aside from the preservation of liberty, to deny people the right to end their lives on their own terms brings them to desperate measures. Recently, four members of the Final Exit Network in Georgia were charged with assisting in suicides. The Final Exit Network is an assisted suicide advocacy group that may be responsible for up to 300 deaths throughout the country. The group assisted patients who wished to die by placing a cap over their heads in which they pumped helium. Essentially, the person would pass out and die from suffocation as he continued to inhale helium. In order to assure that he did not attempt to remove the cap, the assistant would hold the patient’s hands down. Practices like this tread into the territory of murder, and without concrete physician assisted suicide laws, mentally competent, terminally ill patients will continue to seek methods of suicide which may be neither dignified nor entirely of their own will.
Physician assisted suicide is not a pleasant topic of discussion, but terminal illness is a reality and so long as people wish to have control of their deaths, they should be afforded that liberty. To deny terminally ill patients who meet reasonable requirements of mental competence the ability to have a dignified death is to deny people a personal liberty that impacts no one more deeply than the person choosing to seek assistance in ending their life.
In addition, so long as physician assisted suicide is a criminal offense, patients will continue to seek assistance, but without the proper restraints that can assure that only terminally ill, mentally competent patients are seeking help from medical professionals with their best interests in mind. The subject matter is bleak, but legalization of physician assisted suicide based on the models of Oregon and Washington is the only way to bring dignity to those with terminal illness.
Michael Khavari is a Viewpoint Writer for The Cavalier Daily.
Read More
COHEN: Charlottesville must embrace a comprehensive solution to homelessness
By Ryan Cohen | YesterdayThe city has made several past efforts to reduce homelessness, but the growing number of unhoused people suggests that these temporary solutions are simply not enough.
WILLIAMS: The future of Virginia is on the ballot this fall
By Ryan Williams | 5 days agoHence, voters must make it their top priority to think critically and closely as they decide who their ballot will support this fall.
PARTING SHOT: On the art of walking and chewing gum
By Nathan Onibudo | May 17, 2025Student journalism, and maybe even life more generally, is about holding space for multiple conflicting truths.
