Euthanasia
...g the law on euthanasia would encounter several difficulties such as abuses, mistakes and going out of control. However, Nowell calls attention to the example of the Dutch system that presents checks and balances to control the system. Lastly, Nowell puts forth his argument against the World Medical Assembly and the American President’s Commission where he appeals that the Commission recognize passive euthanasia and allow it instead of letting people suffer. As there being no moral distinction between active and passive euthanasia, in his opinion, Nowell argues that letting a person die may be worse that killing him or her since ending the person’s life allows a dignified, painless exit. Hence, Patrick Nowell Smith stresses that legalization of euthanasia is needed to ease suffering and allow people the right to decide when and in what manner they wish to die. PART B: Critique Anticipating responses to his argument, Patrick Nowell Smith gives consideration to counter –arguments in his article, “The Right to Die.” In fact, Nowell employs an approach where -in he first states the opposing argument and its merits, i.e. why euthanasia should not be permitted, and then goes on to state his own view point and justification to refute that. However, a clever strategy couched in fuzzy euphemisms might not be able to completely blur vital inequities in some arguments. In his attempt to persuade, Nowell overlooks aspects presented by other authors to refute his case. In support of the legalization of euthanasia, Patrick Nowell Smith neglects to recognize a genre of the rights –based theory that would take into account the case of children, minorities and the poor. Further, Nowell overlooks another possibility of the utilitarian approach where –in, the government might use such a law to contain health care and insurance costs. Also, in case of voluntary euthanasia societies and terminally ill patients, Nowell does not consider the fact that such a law might impede medical research and better education of health –care professionals as well as distort the role of ‘a doctor’ as well as the code of medical ethics. First, in case of the rights –based theory that Nowell uses to support legalization of euthanasia, he overlooks the consideration of how young people, minorities and the poor would be affected. According to Susan M. Wolf, a professor of law and medicine at the University of Minnesota, considering the pediatric implications of euthanasia is most necessary for a complete debate of the issue. Furthermore, she warns that conducting such a debate without contemplating consequences for minors as well as young people would be ignoring too much. “Death on Demand” or “Suicide kits for children” as an Arizona lobbyist Diane Cole describes what a law for euthanasia would do, suggests that such a law would give every depressed teenager to die over something as incongruous as unbearable emotional pain from a break –up, bad grades, depression, divorce, or physical pain from an injury that can be treated but is unbearable at the time. Moreover, as appealing as it might be to have a “choice,” says Vice President of ethics for the American Medical Association, Linda Manuel, such a law would victimize minorities and poor people. According to statistics published in the journal, ‘Annals of Internal Medicine,’ African – American patients with a broken arm or leg are less likely to be given pain medication in emergency rooms than white patients with similar injuries. Further, despite equal medical coverage, wealthy white patients often receive better medical care than African –Americans or poor people of all races. Therefore, African –American academics in bioethical issues allege that a law for euthanasia would present new opportunities to victimize minorities. A quote published in the Detroit Free Press aptly describes the situation stating, “People know they don’t get health care they need while they’re living. So what makes them think anything’s going to be more sensitive then they’re dying.” Second, in the article “The Right to Die,” Nowell fails to see another possibility of the utilitarian approach where the government might use such a law to contain health care and insurance costs. In fact, acting general solicitor for the US Supreme Court, Walter Dellinger aptly states the case when saying, “The least costly treatment for any illness is lethal medication.” Also in support, we find Collin P. Harrison’s article ‘Euthanasia, Medicine and Law’ where he lists some of the so called “real social advantages in killing” as that “it speeds up the turnover of beds for patients with terminal illnesses” and that “it reduces the cost of terminal illness.” Furthermore, when considering that the drugs for assisted suicide cost “about $35 to $45,” thus making them a great deal cheaper than medical care, Medicaid programs such as the Oregon Medicaid program offer non –governmental insurance plans that “pay for assisted suicide for poor residents as a means of co...