Euthanasia In John Steinbeck's Legalization Of Assisted Suicide

Tyler O’Brien

Ms. Coursey

English III

11 November 2013

Euthanasia

INTRODUCTION:

THESIS:

In today’s very liberal society, a person should be able to choose their own life or death. “Look, Candy. This ol’ dog jus’ suffers hisself all the time if you was to take him out and shoot him right in the back of the head right there, why he’d never know what hit him.” (Steinbeck 21) “He’s all stiff with rheumatism. He ain’t no good to anyone, Candy. An’ he ain’t no good to himself. Why’n’t you shoot him, Candy?” (Steinbeck 21) “George raised the gun and steadied it, and brought the muzzle of it close to the back of Lennie’s head. The hand shook violently, but his face set and his hand steadied. He pulled the trigger.” (Steinbeck 51) George

John Steinbeck believed strongly in autonomy. This autonomy allows a person to choose whether they live or die. “Throughout John Steinbeck’s career, his affinity and compassion for the average person’s struggle for autonomy surfaces as a recurrent link among his works” (Hickey). “Advocates of legalization of assisted suicide typically begin with the principle of autonomy. There is little dispute that personal autonomy, the right to make decisions for oneself and to control one’s destiny, is a central principle of American law” (Rosenfeld 9).

Euthanasia could benefit society. People with a disability would not have to be a burden anymore. Steinbeck wrote of Lennie’s mental flaws holding others back from what they want. “They are doomed from the start because of Lennie’s fatal flaw. He is developmentally disabled and therefore incapable of bringing the dream to fruition” (Hickey). He is better off dead instead of causing so many problems for others. Steinbeck also wrote of killing a dog to put it out of its

“Physicians consistently underestimate the quality of life of patients who have disabilities. Such underestimation leads physicians to make statements to disabled individuals and their families that may have a traumatic influence on treatment decisions to withhold or withdraw care” (Foley 316).

“This lack of training in the care of the dying is further evidenced in practice. Physicians’ lack of knowledge about the control of the symptoms are obvious barriers to the provision of good care at the end of life” (Foley 303).

“If the hospice mantra, ‘you matter because you are you and you matter to the last moment of your life and we will do all we can not only to help you die peacefully but to live until you die” (Foley 289).

“Under the Oregon law, the physician is required to suggest that patients inform their families of their request for assisted suicide, but the patients are not required to do so and are permitted to refuse to inform them. The physician is explicitly instructed in the law to not deny the request on the basis of such a refusal. Even if the patient complies, the physician is not required by law to ask to see the patient’s family” (Foley