During the 1990s, the subject of assisted suicide was thrust into the world due to the decision of one terminally ill woman who wanted a dignified end to her life. The story of Janet Adkins, a well-known recipient of physician-assisted suicide, and Dr. Jack Kevorkian sparked numerous debates about the ethical treatments of terminally ill patients.
Janet Adkins was a music teacher from Portland, Oregon, her diagnosis of Alzheimer’s was devastating, not only to her but to her family who witnessed her progressive decline. Janet Adkins decided to put her fate into her own hands before the disease could fully strip her of her cognitive functions. Her search for an end that she would be in control of led her to Dr. Jack Kevorkian (nicknamed ‘Dr. Death’), a pathologist who had become a popular figure due to his research and support for assisted suicide. In 1990, assisted suicide was considered illegal in most U.S. states and had not yet been addressed by federal law. Opinions among citizens were divided, one side argued in favor of the sanctity of life and that assisted suicide was the beginning of a slippery slope towards devaluing life. The other stood with Dr. Kevorkian in the belief that individuals with terminal illnesses should have the autonomy to die with dignity. Janet Adkins’ initial visit with Kevorkian was on June 4th, 1990. Inside a small recreational van at a Michigan campground was where Janet Adkins spent her last hours. Kevorkian designed a machine known as the ‘Mercitron’ which allowed patients to self-administer a lethal dose of drugs by pressing a button. Adkins knowingly pushed the button on the Mercitron which triggered the injection of the drugs into her bloodstream, causing a swift and painless death. The entire process was documented by Kevorkian, ensuring that Adkins was certain of what she was doing and that all her actions were entirely voluntary.
A clear picture of the procedure was published through court documents, interviews, and newspaper reports from the era. According to a New York Times article from June 6th, 1990, “Kevorkian was in the room but did not inject the drugs himself” showing the gray area of the law at the time, making it confusing as to whether he could be prosecuted because he did not administer the drugs himself. This would be crucial to Kevorkian’s defense, emphasizing that Janet Adkins acted under her own free will, but Kevorkian was still arrested and charged with 2nd-degree murder, initiating a legal battle that would last for years and bring the topic of assisted suicide to the limelight. The family of Janet Adkins’ made statements to the press in full support of her decision to die. Ron Adkins, Janet’s husband stated “She wanted to die with dignity and not live in a vegetative state”. The statement added a level of humanity to the controversy, showing that beyond the legal and ethical arguments surrounding the case, people close to Janet were facing a loss.
As the case progressed, it became harder for Kevorkian to show that this procedure was really in the best interest of his patients. Kevorkian’s defense was that he was honoring the request of his patients, who had come to him knowing that they would otherwise suffer for years until death. But prosecutors depicted Kevorkian as a killer, violating the law and medical ethics. Kevorkian was eventually found not guilty, however, the trial inspired both sides of the assisted suicide debate, resulting in increased public awareness of the issue and legal changes. In fact, Oregon was the first state to make physician-assisted suicide legal in 1997 with the Death with Dignity Act with several other states following in subsequent years. Despite more states accepting assisted suicide, the Supreme Court of the United States did not see the action as something that should be protected by the Constitution’s Due Process Clause, further leaving a gray area as to whether assisted suicide was really legal in America.
This situation interested me with its profound ethical arguments, and how a challenging situation can bring people together to share their opinions, but also attempt to create improvements that will serve both the well-being of the people that are affected and their respective beliefs, illustrating how interdisciplinary medicine is. Janet Adkins’ decision was not made easily, but it was a deliberate choice to maintain control of her fate in the face of a terminal illness. Her courage in seeking a dignified end to her life and the legal battles that came from it highlights the tension between societal norms and individual autonomy, but the question is, how do we as a society ensure that people in vulnerable situations such as terminal illness are provided with adequate care while also respecting the wishes of those who want to end their suffering on their own terms? The story of Janet Adkins is proof that when faced with hard decisions about their life, one should trust their instincts and not let what society has accepted as normal outweigh your own beliefs.
