Physicians Ought Not Kill
Dying well or experiencing death with dignity and ease is the root understanding of the Greek word euthanasia. A pious Catholic could invoke the help ofSt. Joseph for such a death. But in the twentieth century, dying well has become a serious problem owing ironically and in no small part to the medically advanced and highly technologized treatment we have devised. To many sick and terminal patients, not only their illness but the prospect of such treatment is overwhelming and frightening. Facing their mortality has led some of them to propose suicide as a form of dying well, specifically, physician-assisted suicide. The proposal and, in the state of Oregon, the actual practice have stirred moral and public policy debates as the literature amply attests. I While this paper treats of some of those debates, its primary concern is the vital distinction between killing and letting die. The distinction all too easily escapes popular notice but nonetheless determines the debate about physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia. Doctors and health care workers need no reminding about the mixed results which the union of medicine and technology has had in patient care. "The same technology which extends the life of one person may simply prolong the dying of another.,,2 In cases where partial or full recovery is in doubt, images of sedated or comatose patients tethered to machines raise the question whether such treatment is worth it after all. The Quinlan case in 1976 and the Cruzan case in 1988, and a succession of cases between