So what’s the source of the latest debate? Wisconsin Senate Bill 151. This act would permit “certain individuals to make written requests for medication for the purpose of ending their lives…”

On April 19, 2007 Wisconsin state Sens. Fred Risser, Robert Jauch and Tim Carpenter introduced Senate Bill 151, an act intending to make euthanasia a real and legal possibility for the terminally ill in Wisconsin. Euthanasia is a highly controversial topic in the United States, and once again the country is raising the issue, sparking debates about the moral and legal rights citizens have over their own mortality.

So what exactly is euthanasia, anyway? The word euthanasia originated from the Greek language: eu means “good,” and thanatos means “death.” This linguistic definition may hold little value these days, as our current idea of euthanasia seems to be synonymous with the term “physician-assisted suicide.”

Depending on the political agenda of the user, one definition is usually preferred over the other. The truth is, however, there are several terms that fall under the same blanket term euthanasia.

Involuntary euthanasia involves the ending of a person’s life who has not explicitly requested aid in dying. This is generally performed on persons who are in a persistently vegetative state, with little or no chance of recovering consciousness. The term may also be applied to the lethal injections given to prisoners on death row.

Passive euthanasia involves altering a person’s medical support in order to more quickly “let nature take its course.” This version of euthanasia is performed on persons who are terminally ill or in a persistently vegetative state, commonly in accordance with a DNR (Do Not Resuscitate) order. Such procedures usually entail the removal of life support or stopping medical procedures and commonly involve large doses of pain medication.

Active euthanasia involves directly causing the death of a person upon a request from that person; this is also referred to as a “mercy killing.”

This version of euthanasia was made most famous by Dr. Jack Kevorkian, a Michigan doctor who was found guilty of second-degree murder in 1999 after he followed a patient’s wishes and injected the patient with a lethal dose of a controlled substance, resulting in the patient’s death.

Physician-assisted suicide involves a physician providing a person with the means to commit suicide so that they can terminate their own life easily. It’s also referred to as voluntary passive euthanasia.” This most commonly comes in the form of a prescription for a lethal dose of a controlled substance, commonly pain medication.

The latter of these versions of euthanasia is the source of current debates about the legality, morality and religious implications of euthanasia, and the latest forum for debate is located much closer than many of us realize.

So what’s the source of the latest debate? Wisconsin Senate Bill 151. This act would permit “certain individuals to make written requests for medication for the purpose of ending their lives…” The act, which was the topic of a Jan. 23 public hearing in Madison, closely resembles the Oregon Death with Dignity Act, ratified in 1994.

The ODWDA currently makes Oregon the only state that allows physician-assisted suicide, and they didn’t achieve this status without a fight. After surviving a 1997 ballot seeking the act’s repeal, the issue made its way to the Supreme Court in October of 2005.

In this landmark case, Gonzales v. Oregon (previously titled Oregon v. Ashcroft), former Attorneys General Alberto Gonzales and John Ashcroft attempted to exact consequences on Oregon physicians who wrote prescriptions in accordance with the ODWDA, arguing that they were in violation of the Controlled Substances Act.

As stated in the case, “The Controlled Substances Act… which was enacted in 1970 with the main objectives of combating drug abuse and controlling legitimate and illegitimate traffic in controlled substances, criminalizes, inter alia, the unauthorized distribution and dispensation of substances classified in any of its five schedules. The Attorney General may add, remove, or reschedule substances only after making particular findings, and on scientific and medical matters, he must accept the findings of the Secretary of Health and Human Services.”

On Jan. 17, 2006 Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy delivered the opinion of the Court, stating that, “the CSA does not allow the Attorney General to prohibit doctors from prescribing regulated drugs for use in physician-assisted suicide under state law permitting the procedure.”

This decision seemed to follow the trend set by two earlier cases, both decided on June 26, 1997, where the Supreme Court unanimously upheld the right of states to prohibit assisted suicide (Washington v. Glucksberg and Vacco v. Quill).

Although some interests feel that the 2005 Supreme Court decision was cause for alarm, to date no other states have successfully ratified any such laws.

Wisconsin is just the latest name on the roster of states attempting to imitate Oregon, hoping for success despite the previous failures of Arizona, California and Hawaii, though, currently, the 2-year bill is languishing in committee.

Wisconsin’s SB 151 procedures for qualification mimic those listed in the ODWDA. The individual must be an adult Wisconsin resident, of sound mind and terminally ill before even being eligible to begin the process. More details about SB 151are available online at www.legis.state.wi.us.

> Comments