To be or not to be?: Euthanasia debated

Should a doctor legally be able to prescribe medicine to end a patient's life? That was the controversial issue addressed last Thursday evening in the first-ever official debate run by Penn Forum -- a newly established Speaking Across the University-sponsored organization. The discussion, "Mercy or Murder: Should Euthanasia Be Legal?" drew about 70 Penn students to College Hall -- an "excellent" turnout, according to Penn Forum Chairperson and Wharton sophomore Ethan Laub. Rita Marker, executive director of the International Anti-Euthanasia Taskforce, squared off against Faye Girsh, president of the Hemlock Society. Moderating the debate was Paul Lanken, director of medical education at the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania and a professor in the Penn Center for Bioethics. The evening started with a welcome from Laub and an introduction by Lanken, who laid out the ground rules for the event. The speakers each had 20 minutes to present their respective views and five minutes to respond to each other's dialogue. Marker and Girsh provided factual background on the issue during the discussion. Currently, euthanasia is illegal in all 50 states. Physician-assisted suicide, however, is and has been a legal medical treatment in Oregon since November 1997. The difference between euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide involves the degree of contact between doctor and patient. An example of euthanasia is a doctor directly injecting a patient with a lethal dose of a drug. Physician-assisted suicide, however, involves an intermediary step between the patient and doctor. For example, the doctor writes a prescription for a lethal dose of barbiturates, but does not administer it. "There are a few people who would like to hasten the process [because of] great suffering," Girsh claimed, adding that being "in control" of when to end their lives has enabled many people to live longer than expected because it reduces their fear. Marker, however, is a staunch opponent of the legalization of assisted suicide. She fears the potential abuse of the practice if made legal. For example, for doctors under a managed care contract, it is much cheaper to prescribe a $35 prescription -- the cost of a lethal dose of barbiturates -- to a patient than to prescribe a prolonged and uncertain treatment regiment. Marker said she believes that some doctors would take advantage of this cost-effective treatment and would recommend it too strongly to their patients. But Girsh rebutted that "there is a possibility for abuses in every law" and that she had not heard of any instances of abuse in Oregon. "Dying after the point that you want to die, that you should die, is an abuse," she said. The debate ended with a short wrap-up by both speakers, in which Girsh claimed that the right-to-die movement will be the "civil rights issue of the next century."