Short Stories

For her sake

In most states of the United States of America it is illegal to commit or assisted in committing suicide no matter the reason. There are states such as Vermont and California where it is legal and can be performed by doctors as a means to end the pain and suffering of terminally ill patients. Although it is legal to help someone commit suicide in these states, there are restrictions and guideline on how to help someone commit suicide. In the case of Mrs. Velma Howard however the rules were not followed and make cause her family members to be on trial for committing manslaughter but there is doubt to why they should be. This case has information gaps and many untouched subjects but the case provides a great floor to discuss the major ethical problem which is should it be legal available for terminally ill patients to be able to either commit suicide or have assistance in the act?

In order to use words we must define what they mean. According to a Medical Ethics class held at Notre Dame the definition of suicide is loosely "the taking of one's own life by one's own hand". This definition works only because it is as accurate as possible without many outliers. There is another term that I will be using which is assisted suicide which is "The deliberate hastening of death by a terminally ill patient with assistance from a doctor, family member, or another individual" (Medicine.Net.com). The final term is terminal illness. Terminal illness is defined as "the condition of suffering from a serious illness and whose life expectancy is less than 24 month." (Euthanasia and Physician assisted suicide hand out). These terms come into play when we are examining the case of Mrs. Howard

According to the case Mrs. Howard was a 76 year old woman who was diagnosed with ALS. ALS cause rapid loss of muscle use because "the neurons in the anterior horn of the spinal cord become dysfunctional" (case study). Since her death is coming fast and painfully Mrs. Howard has decided commit suicide with the help and assistance of her son and husband. She kills herself after making a recording and in a Missouri hotel. Before asking her son and husband to help her kill herself she made a three minute audio recording. In a separate study 54% of patients with ALS would request to have assistance in suicide. The same study show that 62% of the care givers would support the patient in committing suicide. This case shows that most people do not want to suffer throw ALS nor do the care givers such as family members

The case is missing a lot of information such as where she lived? How fast she was dying? How many doctors did she see? What did the doctor(s) give her? How/what was the cause of her death? How long was she living with the thoughts of killing herself? What did her family and doctors do in order to comfort her? With this information not given in the sample not only can some questions come up but others cannot be answered. Some other key information that the sample does provide was who was there and what they were into relation to her. Her son has the duties of a son, which are to help, love, support and care for his parents. Her husband has the rights and duties to take care of her and support her. They are both supposed to give help, care, and do whatever they can in order for her to not be in pain.

The law always comes into play when medicine and death is present. In the state of Missouri it is a class B felony to help or assisted in anyone's suicide. It is considered a class B felony which can mean five to fifteen years in prison (M.). Missouri does not legally approve of assisted suicide on any level. The state is using a universality and impartiality moral judgement since they do not want everyone who is in serious pain to kill themselves. The state has a valid argument since everyone will, at some point, feel extreme pain but if we separate Mrs. Howard's case to just terminal ALS in the final stages it was according to a deontological and utilitarianism argument that both her son and husband were acting for the good of her and others with her disease. A deontologist could say that because the son and husband have the duty to help their mother or wife that helping her end her misery by ending her life was the best option since it was a terminal disease. The utilitarian would say that this is the best for those who are terminally ill, in extreme pain and no longer want to live. Deontology determines what is right by using what is right action depending on duty and role and utilitarianism determines what is right by looking and examining what the consequences of the action.

I believe that those two philosophical schools of thoughts would have agreed with the action but they would also need clarification. The case needed to include there needs to be more specific information about how she died because if her death had anything to do with choking or asphyxiation then she might have been better living out her days since that was how she was going to die anyway. She would have had more time with her family and her son and husband would not be possible murderers.