Aaron Wibranowski Writing assignment #2 SYG2323.002 A Take On Legalizing Physician Assisted Suicide Abstract The topic of physician assisted suicide and euthanasia has been amongst the most discussed and controversial in recent history. After analyzing other sources, it is clear that in the realm of opinions, this topic is still very well divided. Further investigation shows that the topic is far more complicated than the typical case of physician assisted suicide that we all imagine; that of a terminally-ill patient with unbearable pain, when in fact, there are many other instances where physician-assisted suicide could be, and more importantly, should be an option. To put it briefly, there are four main types of possible cases, two of which are fairly accepted by society, the other two, not so much. This paper will furthermore argue them, while providing strong concrete evidence that they all should be legalized. Introduction The four major cases, or instances of physician-assisted suicide are as follows; when the doctor actively intervenes by powering down the equipment that keeps the patient alive (disconnecting cases), when a patient requests that critical treatment may not be underwent (nonconnecting cases), when a physician or a caregiver provides the necessary lethal drugs to the patient, so that they can commit suicide (drug-providing cases) and lastly, when the physician administer the drugs themselves (drug-injecting cases). Furthermore, the moral stand and arguments for legalization of these four cases will be explored through the analysis of secondary data. Continuously, the Strain theory might explain why there are some cases that are rejected by society, while there are others that are accepted. In addition, a possible primary data collection method will also be considered. The main goal of this paper is to demonstrate that all four cases of physician assisted suicide should indeed be legalized, and society’s structural constraints prevent the population from achieving this goal. Methodology: Secondary Data Analysis According to Thomson (1999) “Acceding to a patient’s request in a disconnecting or nonconnecting case is legally permissible, and just about everyone agrees that that situation is morally permissible. But acceding to a patient’s request in a drug-providing case is on any view illegal in most states and doing so in a drug-injecting case is so too (p. 499).” The main reason why this has come to be is because society sees the infringement of the wish of a patient not to sustain life-saving treatment as a battery, since treatment is seen as something that alters the normal course of life, and by contrast, the refusal to administer a lethal drug is not seen as a battery, because doing so would also be intrusive (Thomson, 1999). Therefore, given that both of them can alter the normal course of life, this argument cannot be used to discredit drug-injecting and drug-providing cases (Thomson,1999). In regard to drug-pr ...

1. Aaron Wibranowski
Writing assignment #2
SYG2323.002
A Take On Legalizing Physician Assisted Suicide
Abstract
The topic of physician assisted suicide and euthanasia has been
amongst the most discussed and controversial in recent history.
After analyzing other sources, it is clear that in the realm of
opinions, this topic is still very well divided. Further
investigation shows that the topic is far more complicated than
the typical case of physician assisted suicide that we all
imagine; that of a terminally-ill patient with unbearable pain,
when in fact, there are many other instances where physician-
assisted suicide could be, and more importantly, should be an
option. To put it briefly, there are four main types of possible
cases, two of which are fairly accepted by society, the other
two, not so much. This paper will furthermore argue them,
while providing strong concrete evidence that they all should be
legalized.
Introduction
The four major cases, or instances of physician-assisted suicide
are as follows; when the doctor actively intervenes by powering
down the equipment that keeps the patient alive (disconnecting
cases), when a patient requests that critical treatment may not
be underwent (nonconnecting cases), when a physician or a
caregiver provides the necessary lethal drugs to the patient, so
that they can commit suicide (drug-providing cases) and lastly,
when the physician administer the drugs themselves (drug-
injecting cases). Furthermore, the moral stand and arguments
for legalization of these four cases will be explored through the
analysis of secondary data. Continuously, the Strain theory
might explain why there are some cases that are rejected by
society, while there are others that are accepted. In addition, a

2. possible primary data collection method will also be considered.
The main goal of this paper is to demonstrate that all four cases
of physician assisted suicide should indeed be legalized, and
society’s structural constraints prevent the population from
achieving this goal.
Methodology: Secondary Data Analysis
According to Thomson (1999) “Acceding to a patient’s request
in a disconnecting or nonconnecting case is legally permissible,
and just about everyone agrees that that situation is morally
permissible. But acceding to a patient’s request in a drug-
providing case is on any view illegal in most states and doing so
in a drug-injecting case is so too (p. 499).” The main reason
why this has come to be is because society sees the
infringement of the wish of a patient not to sustain life-saving
treatment as a battery, since treatment is seen as something that
alters the normal course of life, and by contrast, the refusal to
administer a lethal drug is not seen as a battery, because doing
so would also be intrusive (Thomson, 1999). Therefore, given
that both of them can alter the normal course of life, this
argument cannot be used to discredit drug-injecting and drug-
providing cases (Thomson,1999).
In regard to drug-providing and drug-injecting cases, the most
important argument for the opposition has been a moral one.
Mainly the difference between killing and letting die (Thomson,
1999). Many define disconnecting and nonconnecting cases as
merely letting die, because when a caregiver disconnects a
patient, he or she is basically letting nature takes its course, and
that is why they are legal and accepted by society in general,
but drug-providing and drug-injecting cases are seen as killing,
because it is the drug that the physician administers or provides
that kills the patient (Thomson, 1999). Furthermore, Thomson
(1999) argues that “If a patient is currently being kept alive by
a respirator, then nature taking its course is being prevented by
the respirator. The doctor who disconnects him from the
respirator removes what is preventing nature form taking its
course. The doctor intervenes and seems to be most plausibly

3. seen as not letting nature take its course, but rather causing it to
(P.501).” This proves to be a compelling argument because it
shows just how subjective this argument can be. To put it in
simpler words, if someone were to knock out the foundation of a
home, they are not just letting gravity take its course, they are
intervening, they are indeed causing gravity to take its course
(Thomson, 1999). In both scenarios the patient and those in the
house would die sooner than they otherwise would. Therefore,
Thomson (1999) argues that the difference between killing and
letting die has not even been established, which in turn
diminishes the argument that drug-providing and drug-injecting
cases should be illegal for the mere reason that they are instead
considered killing, as oppose to letting die.
Moreover, it is important to consider that drug-providing cases
do not follow the rationale that the patient is dying by the
doctor’s hand, because it is the patient who decides to take the
lethal cocktail (Thomson, 1999). This leaves the most
challenging case to argue; the drug-injecting case. Thomson
(1999) argues that if the doctor killing a patient is immoral,
then the drug-injecting is also morally impermissible.
Nevertheless, “Most opponents of physician-assisted suicide are
content to allow a doctor to give what is in fact a lethal dose of
morphine when nothing less than that will relieve the pain of
the patient, or make it bearable (Thomson, 1999, P.508).” In
fact, according to Thomson (1999), during oral argument in the
Supreme Court, Walter Dellinger, who was the acting solicitor
general arguing against physician assisted suicide said “We
agree that state law may…not only allow withdrawal of medical
treatment but also allow physicians to prescribe medication in
sufficient doses to relieve pain even when the necessary dose
will hasten death. So long as the physician’s intent is to relieve
pain and not to cause death (Thomson, 1999, P.508).” This
means that a doctor doing something with intent to cause the
patient death is different from a doctor’s doing something
foreseeing that his death will ensue (Thomson, 1999). To put
this in perspective, going back to disconnecting and

4. nonconnecting, there is no doubt that a doctor knows that if
they disconnect or nonconnect a patient, they will inevitably
die, yet these two practices are accepted by society, despite the
doctor doing or not doing something with the intent of causing
the patient’s death. That is what is called a double-standard
(Thomson, 1999).
As it was shown in previous paragraphs, the legality of all four
cases of physician-assisted suicide lies heavily on the doctors
themselves, and how morally permissible it is for them to
perform it. It is clear that these arguments are nothing but
complex, and even though they have been rebutted, there is
another solution, which removes a variable from this whole
equation; the physicians themselves. According to consultant
radiologist Bob Bury (2002) “if society want euthanasia, fine.
Let society draw up the framework that will prevent abuse form
this new freedom” (P.848). Bury (2002) then emphasizes on
having specific locations designed only to perform physician
assisted suicide, and that way, the doctors’ morals, and their
oath to preserve life is not being infringed.
Theory
According to Adler, Mueller and Laufer (2007), Strain theory
tries to explain crime by stating that “the real problem, is
created not by sudden social change but by a social structure
that holds out all the same goals to all its members without
giving them equal means to achieve them. This lack of
integration between what the culture calls for and what it
permits, can cause norms to break down because they no longer
are effective guides to behavior” (P.103). This theory can be
applied to the controversy of legalizing all of the cases of
physician assisted suicide because even though it has been
proven that there is no reason to make disconnecting and
nonconnecting legal, but to illegalize drug-providing and drug-
injecting, society’s structural boundaries like the Supreme
Court’s arguments that are not consistent with their premises
are exactly what prevents individual in all cases to achieve their
wishes, which is to die a dignified death, within their control.

5. Society needs physician-assisted suicide, but its structure
prevents it, and therefore, it forces doctors to find loopholes
and engage in deviant or even criminal behavior, like killing a
patient with a high dose of morphine but having to lie about
their intent.
Methodology: Primary Data
If I had to conduct research and collect data on my own, I
would personally choose to do a case study. A case study is an
intensive study about a person, a group of people or a unit,
which is aimed to generalize over several units, in order to
make a concrete conclusion about a topic (Adler, Mueller,
Laufer, 2007). I would first track down family members of
patients that constituted each of the four cases of physician-
assisted suicide and interview them about how they saw their
loved one suffer to death because they were not allowed to
perform a physician-assisted suicide. Subsequently, I would
track patients that are requesting physician-assisted suicide and
record these cases to further strengthen my argument. Lastly, I
would also analyze past legal cases and arguments involving
this topic to establish a common denominator regarding the
opposition’s arguments, to better establish a counter-argument.
Findings and Conclusions
After researching other sources, it has been established that
Physician-assisted suicide is a rather complex and very
controversial topic of discussion. Nevertheless, it has been
established that the arguments from those who oppose physician
assisted suicide are merely based on morality, and more often
than not contradict each other with different cases. Moreover, it
has also been established that if the main concern is having
doctors performing physician-assisted suicide, then having
specific locations designed to perform this task is a feasible
solution. I think that placing restrictions on what can be done
on someone despite their wishes is a serious infringement of
liberty. I suggest that instead of focusing on the doctors intend
to do or not to do, we should focus on the patient’s last desires,
just like we should not be driven by the uncertainty of doctors

6. killing or just letting nature take its course.
References:
Adler, F., Mueller, G. O., & Laufer, W. S. (2007). Criminology.
New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Bury, B. (2002). Doctors should not decide on medical and
"existential" suffering (7341 ed., aaaaVol. 324). British Medical
Journal. pp. 497-518 doi:25227940
Thomson, J. J. (1999). Physician Assisted Suicide: Two Moral
Arguments (3rd ed., Vol. 109). The aaaaaUniversity Of Chicago
Press. Pp. 848 doi:10.1086/233919
10/2/2017

7. 1
Chapter 8:
Labeling, Conflict & Radical Theories
-Slides and data in this outline are from Adler, Mueller, and
Laufer (2007, 2013 &
2018); Siegel (2015); and modified by Manning (2007, 2013,
2015 & 2018).
Labeling Theory
or Social Reaction Theory
• Labeling theorist began to explore how and why certain acts
were
defined as criminal or deviant while others were not, and how
and
why certain people were defined as criminal or deviant.
• Howard S. Becker
• Deviance is not a quality of the act the person commits, but
rather a
consequence of the application by others of rules and sanctions
to an
“offender”. The deviant is one to whom that label has
successfully been
applied, deviant behavior is behavior that people so label.
• When ones deviance is known they are segregated from
society and labeled.
• This creates outsiders our outcasts.
• One begins to associate with others just like themselves.
• More people in society think and react to the outcaste as
deviant.

8. • Ones self-image gradually changes.
• W. I. Thomas Theory
Frank Tannenbaum
Dramatization of Evil
• Criminals are created in a process of tagging, defining,
segregating,
making conscious and self-conscious.
• It becomes a way of evoking the very traits that are
complained of.
Edwin Lemert: Primary versus Secondary Deviance
• Primary deviation: initial deviant acts that bring on the first
social
response.
• These acts without labeling to not affect individual self-
concept.
• Secondary deviation: the acts that follow societal response.
• The major concern is secondary deviance.
10/2/2017
2
Edwin Schur
labeling theory
• Human behavior is deviant to the extent that it comes to be
viewed

9. as involving a personally discreditable departure from a group’s
norms and expectations and elicits interpersonal and collective
reactions that serve to:
• “isolate”, “treat”, “correct”, or “punish” individuals engaged
in such behavior.
Howard Becker
Moral Entrepreneurs make the rules
• Moral Entrepreneurs make the rules that define deviant
behavior including
crime.
• The process becomes a political one pitting rule makers
against rule
breakers.
Labeling theory in application:
• Civil Rights movement - MLK
• Women’s liberation – voting and what job can I do
• Vietnam protesting, draft card burning
• Kent State 1970
• ACLU’s stance against racial profiling
• Black lives matter.
Empirical Evidence for Labeling
two studies
• Study One: 13 volunteers admitted into various mental
hospitals.
• Study two: class and inequality in treatment of juvenile
delinquency.

10. • Saints – owned cars, athletes, apologetic.
• Roughnecks – highly visible and outspoken.
• Once labeled part of a group, is it possible to exit?
10/2/2017
3
Consensus Model
Durkheim
• Consensus Model assumes that member of society by and large
agree
on what is right and wrong and that law is the codification of
these
agreed-upon social values.
• The law is the mechanism to settle disputes that arise when
individuals stray too far from what the community considers
acceptable.
• We can say that an act is criminal when it offends strong and
defined states of
collective conscience.
• When members of a society unite against a deviant they
reaffirm their
commitment to shared values.
Conflict Theory
Karl Marx
• The conflict model assumes that laws do not exist for the

11. collective
good, they represent the interests of specific groups that have
the
power to get them enacted.
• The key concept in conflict theory is power.
• The laws have their origin in the interest of the few, these few
shape
the values, and their values shape the laws.
Conflict Theory explored
• Primitive societies offered more consensus.
• Conflict: if there is consensus then
• Why are there so many crimes
• So much rebellion
• So many in prison
• Those with power work to keep the powerless at a
disadvantage.
• Enforced constraint rather than cooperation holds society
together.
10/2/2017
4
Conflict exploration continued
• Forms of power used to control society
• Control over goods and services
• Unequal Education: creating drop out factories (school to

12. prison pipelines).
• Economic power
• Police power, war power
• Police decide when to arrest, DA when to pursue charges,
judges have discretion too.
• Political power
• Ideology (beliefs & values used to oppress)
• Society is in a constant state of conflict, one of the principles
in which
an ongoing society depend on.
• Criminologist believe that one possible cause of crime can be
linked to
economic, social and political disparity.
Marxist ideology:
Radical Theory, or Critical Criminology
• Marxist
• Capitalism breeds egocentricity, greed, and predatory
behavior.
• History of class struggles: freeman and slave, lord and serf,
oppressor and
oppressed.
• Bourgeoisie versus Proletariat.
• Exploitation of workers in pursuit of surplus value:
• Profits produced by laborers gained by business owners.
• Revolution is only thing to bring change (morally justifiable)
• Rusche & Kirscheimer made penologist aware that the severe
and

13. cruel treatment of offenders had more to do with (lack in) value
of
human life and the needs of the economy than with preventing
crime.
Radical Theory/critical criminology
• Richard Quinney (1973)
• The state is organized to serve capitalist ruling class
• Criminal law is used by ruling class to maintain social and
economic order.
• Subordinate classes remain oppressed by any means necessary
•
Solution
– the collapse of capitalist societies
• Critics point out failing socialist societies
• Soviet Union, Poland, Germany and others.
• Quinney – a true Marxist state has not yet been attained, but
the
ideal is worth pursuing.
10/2/2017

14. 5
Emerging Forms of Radical/Critical Criminology
• Radical Feminist Theory
• Explains both victimization and criminality among women in
terms of gender
inequality, patriarchy, and the exploitation of women under
capitalism.
• How does domestic violence relate to masculinity and “doing
gender”?
• As women’s education access, political power and economic
liberation rise
victimization decreases.
• Abolitionist – community based distribution of
power/resources
• Return to communities to fix power differences.
• Anarchist Criminology
• Communities are destroyed by the state causing crime.

15. •