Schoolwork

Purpose

To utilize two different methods of determining the initial velocity of a fired ball, namely a ballistic pendulum and treating the ball as a projectile, and then compare these two calculated values. The loss of kinetic energy from firing the ball into the pendulum is also an area of interest.

Hypothesis

The initial velocity determined by firing the ball into the ballistic pendulum should theoretically be equal to the initial velocity determined by firing the ball as a projectile.

Labeled Diagrams

See attached sheet.

Data

Part One

v= 6.23 m/s α_v=0.0187 m/s

Part Two

Y=1.003 m v= 8.75 m/s α_v=0.120 m/s

Questions

1. Compare the two different values of v average. Calculate the percent difference between them. State whether the two measurements agree within the combined standard errors of the two values of v average.

The average initial velocity for the ballistic pendulum was 6.23 m/s while the average initial velocity for the projectile determination was 8.75 m/s. This is a percent difference of 33.6%. It should have been expected that these two values would be equal. The two measurements also do not agree within the combined standard errors of the two values for v average, as the standard errors only total 0.1387 m/s, and the average velocities fall out of that range.

2. Calculate the loss in kinetic energy when the ball collides with the pendulum as the difference between ½ mv² (the kinetic energy before) and ½ (m + M)V² (the kinetic energy immediately after the collision). What is the fractional loss in kinetic energy? Calculate by dividing the loss by the original kinetic energy.

The average kinetic energy before the collision is 1.35 J and the average kinetic energy immediately after the collision is 0.272 J, so the loss of kinetic energy is 1.08 J. The fractional loss in kinetic energy is 0.8.

3. Calculate the ratio M / (m + M) for the values of m and M in Part 1. Compare this ratio with the ratio calculated in the previous question. Express the fractional loss of kinetic energy in symbol form and use equations from the Theory section to show it should equal M / (m + M).

The ratio M / (m + M) is equal to 0.8. This ratio is exactly the same as the fractional loss of kinetic energy.

The fractional loss of kinetic energy equals ( ½ mv² – ½ (m + M)V² ) / ( ½ mv² ).

Conclusion

During part one of the experiment, a ball was fired into a ballistic pendulum to ultimately determine its initial velocity. This process was repeated five times in order to obtain average values to work with in order to eliminate error. By massing the ball and the pendulum, recording the initial and final heights, the values for V and finally v could be calculated. It was found that the average initial velocity of the ball was 6.23 m/s.

During part two of the experiment, the same ball was fired as a projectile instead of into a ballistic pendulum. The ball was fired from a table horizontally to the ground. A piece of carbon paper was used to capture the spot where the ball first struck the ground. Height and horizontal distance the ball traveled were then measured in order to determine the initial velocity of the ball. The average initial velocity of the ball was 8.75 m/s.

As far as the accuracy of the results from the lab, the percent difference between the average velocities calculated is 33.6%. This is a fairly significant difference, which suggests that there sources of error during the procedure. The notched part of the ballistic setup could have had finer groves to yield more accurate measurements. The major contributor of error, however, was most likely from the distance measurements from the projectile part of the lab. One positive to come from the results was that the fractional loss in kinetic energy was identical to the mass ratios from the ballistic pendulum setup, which is theoretically expected.

Equations

∆KE = ½ mv²

½ (m + M)V² = (m + M)gh

mv = (m + M)V

V = (2gh)^0.5 v = (m + M) (2gh)^0.5 / m v = ∆x / (2∆y / g)^0.5

This is a PowerPoint presentation I did for class.

Introduction

Tyrosinase is an enzyme involved with that catalysis of monophenols and catechols. Specifically in mammals, tyrosinase catalyzes two steps in the biosynthesis of melanin pigments from tyrosine. The pigment produced from this reaction is used in eyes, hair, and skin. In this laboratory experiment, the kinetics of mushroom tyrosinase is observed by monitoring the oxidation of L and D-3,4-dihydroxyphenyl alanine (Dopa). A crimson colored complex forms from due in part to the oxidoreductase and copper containing functionality of the tyrosinase. The K_M and V_max for tyrosinase can be calculated from resulting data obtained by monitoring the kinetics of the tyrosinase-DOPA solution with a UV-vis spectrophotometer. The enzymatic activity of tyrosinase can then be inhibited and followed via inhibitors such as thiourea and cinnamic acid.

Experimental

During the first week of the experiment, the enzyme kinetics of tyrosine in the presence of L-Dopa and D-Dopa were observed using a UV-vis spectrophotometer at 475 nm. To begin, six solutions were prepared using varying amounts of phosphate buffer and L-Dopa, but an unwavering amount of tyrosinase. The buffer-L-Dopa solutions were prepared in 1 mL cuvettes, and the tyrosinase, kept on ice, was added immediately before subjecting the solutions to UV-vis spectrophotometry. The cuvettes were inverted using paraffin as a cover, in order to mix the enzyme and substrate together, and thus begin the reactions, which was of kinetic interest. The UV-vis was used to monitor the kinetics for one minute. The recorded data could then used to determine the K_M and V_max of tyrosinase. This procedure was then repeated, only using D-Dopa in lieu of L-Dopa.

During the second week of the experiment, the enzyme kinetics of tyrosinase were observed in the presence of L-DOPA and the inhibitors thiourea and cinnamic acid, and were again monitored using a UV-vis spectrophotometer. As in the aforementioned procedure used during the first week of the experiment, the enzyme kinetics of tyrosinase in the presence of varying amounts of L-Dopa and phosphate buffer was monitored using a UV-vis spectrophotometer. For the next two trials, varying amounts of inhibitor was added along with the L-Dopa and phosphate buffer. The inhibitors used were thiourea and trans-cinnamic acid. Again, the enzyme kinetics were followed using a UV-vis spectrophotometer and by comparing the Michaelis-Menten and Lineweaver-Burk plots of the trial without inhibitor to the trials with inhibitor, it could be deciphered as to what class of inhibitors were being dealt with.

Data

L-Dopa Week 1

K_M = 479.0208
V_max = 0.1321

D-Dopa Week 1

K_M = 6616.7
V_max = 0.4886

L-Dopa Week 2

K_M = 512.77
V_max = 0.1529

Thiourea

* Samples 5 and 6 discounted

K_M = 283.6
V_max = 0.1181

Trans-Cinnamic Acid

* Samples 3, 5, and 6 discounted

K_M = 279.8
V_max = 0.1172

Results

In order to find the K_M and V_max, the raw data was first graphed as absorbance versus time. The slopes elicited from the linear regression of these plots were representative of velocity in terms of A/min. These velocities were then converted to umol/min using the equation A = Elc. Absorbance was divided by 3600 M^-1 cm^-1 and multiplied by 1 cm to give M/min, which was then converted to moles/min by multiplying by 0.001 L, the volume of the cuvette, and finally this value was converted to umol/min by multiplying by 10⁶ umol/mol.

The concentration of the substrates was found by taking the known mg/mL concentration, dividing by the formula weight of the molecule to obtain mol/L, then multiplying by 10⁶ umol/mol to obtain units in uM. These values were then multiplied by the percentage they comprised of the mL solution. The reciprocal values were graphed, 1/V versus 1/[S], with the y-intercept being equal to 1/V_max and the x-intercept being equal to -1/K_M.

As far as the results go, the K_M and V_max for L-Dopa are both significantly lower than that of D-Dopa found during the first week. This shows that tyrosinase exhibits stereoselectivity, otherwise the values would be exactly the same. It should have been expected that L-Dopa would have a higher K_M and V_max than that of D-Dopa however, because the naturally occurring Dopa molecule has L configuration. It seems more likely that the naturally occurring molecule would have fast enzyme kinetics than the synthesized molecule.

In regards to the inhibitors, the produced strikingly similar K_M and V_max values, both of which are lower than that of the reaction without either inhibitor. This suggests that both thiourea and cinnamic acid are uncompetitive inhibitors. The V_max values for the runs with the inhibitors is around 0.12 for each, which is fairly close to that of the run without inhibitor, 0.15, but because the K_M values for the inhibitor runs are nearly half that of the K­_M for the trial without inhibitor, I am not sure how to decipher that. Having equal V_max values could potentially make the inhibitors competitive, but the K_M values should be greater, not lower, than that of the enzyme kinetics without inhibitor.

Conclusion

There is undoubtedly some error in the raw data which affected the K_M and V_max values for all the trials. I had to cut out a lot of data points in order to obtain linear regression lines with reasonable R² values for the original absorbance versus time graphs, the slope of which was the velocity of the reaction. Even then, I still had to cut out more points for the Michaelis-Menten and Lineweaver-Burk plots in order to have reasonable looking graphs and values. Because the K_M and V_max values are not as expected, I would have to say the results are inconclusive. The inhibitors had nearly identical K_M and V_max values and had to be classified as uncompetitive. I would have expected the inhibitors to be competitive or noncompetitive, just because for a laboratory experiment I doubt the professor would have us analyze an uncompetitive inhibitor; it does not show much significance. The K_M and V_max for L-Dopa compared to D-Dopa from week one also seem odd; I would have expected L-Dopa to have the higher enzymatic activity.

I am guessing most of the error came from not being able to keep the solutions cold. There was a lot of waiting around in order to use the UV-vis spectrophotometer, and once the solutions of buffer and L-dopa were concocted, there was no real way to keep them chilled. This is probably what interfered with the ability to obtain valid data. It was also somewhat difficult to add the tyrosinase to each cuvette at the very same time, as for some solutions the droplet would gravitate down into the solution before the rest, so this cause error in the UV-vis spectrophotometer readings as well.

Questions

Question 1

Sodium azide – NaN₃

Non-competitive inhibitor because of its ability to bind to copper.

 

Sodium cyanide – NaCN

Non-competitive inhibitor because of its ability to bind to copper.

 

L-phenylalanine – HO₂CCH(NH₂)CH₂C₆H₅

Competitive inhibitor because of its inability to bind to copper.

 

8-hydroxyquinoline – C₉H₇NO

Competitive inhibitor because of its inability to bind to copper.

 

Tryptophan – C₁₁H₁₂N₂O₂

Competitive inhibitor because of its inability to bind to copper.

 

Diethyldithiocarbamate – S₂CN(C₂H₅)₂^–

Non-competitive inhibitor because of its ability to bind to copper.

 

Cysteine – HO₂CCH(NH₂)CH₂SH

Non-competitive inhibitor because of its ability to bind to copper.

 

Thiourea – CH₄N₂S

Non-competitive inhibitor because of its ability to bind to copper.

 

4-chlororesorcinol – C₆H₃(OH)₂Cl

Competitive inhibitor because of its inability to bind to copper.

 

Phenylacetate – CH3COOC₆H₅

Competitive inhibitor because of its inability to bind to copper.

 

Question 2

a. Increase

b. Decrease

c. Decrease

d. Increase

e. Increase

f. No change

Purpose

To determine the relationship between force, displacement, potential energy, kinetic energy, and work by using a force sensor to pull a spring and also to push a cart.

Hypothesis

The work done on the spring will be greatest at its furthest displacement and that the greater the work done on the cart, the greater its acceleration will be.

Labeled Diagrams

See attached sheet.

Data

Part One

Stretch

Part Two

Weight of cart: 5.29 N

Mass of cart: 0.54 kg

Graphs

See attached sheets.

Questions

1. In Part 1 you did work to stretch the spring. The graph of force vs. distance depends on the particular spring you used, but for most springs will be a straight line. This corresponds to Hooke’s law, of F=-kx, where F is the force applied by the spring when it is stretched a distance x. k is the spring constant, measured in N/m. What is the spring constant of the spring? From your graph, does the spring follow Hooke’s law? Do you think that it would always follow Hooke’s law, no matter how far you stretched it? Why is the slope of your graph positive, while Hooke’s law has a minus sign?

The spring constant is 81.668 N/m. From the graph, it does appear that the spring follows Hooke’s law as it produced a fairly straight line. I think the spring would follow Hooke’s law until it is all the way stretched out and cannot be stretched any more, or if breaks. The slope of the graph is positive as it is showing force applied on the spring. Hooke’s law shows the force applied by the spring, so that would be in the opposite direction in which it is pulled, thus being negative.

2. The elastic potential energy stored by a spring is given by ∆PE = ½ kx², where x is the distance. Compare the work you measured to stretch the spring to 10 cm, 20 cm, and the maximum stretch to the stored potential energy predicted by this expression. Should they be similar?

The ∆PE for my intervals was 0.20 J at 7 cm, 0.80 J at 14 cm, and 2.16 J at 23 cm. The ∆PE increased as the displacement is increased. This should be expected, as the spring becomes harder to pull the more it is stretched out.

3. In Part 2 you did work to accelerate the cart. In this case the work went to changing the kinetic energy. Since no spring was involved and the cart moved along a level surface, there is no change in potential energy. How does the work you did compare to the change in kinetic energy. Here, since the initial velocity is zero, ∆KE = ½ mv² where m is the total mass of the cart and any added weights, and v is the final velocity. Record you values in the data table.

The work done, 0.04796 J, is greater than the ∆KE, which is 0.027 J.

Conclusion

Lab Summarized

The overall goal of the lab was to investigate the relationship between work, potential energy, and kinetic energy. The goal was achieved using a spring and force sensor along with a motion detector to determine the work done on the spring when pulling it. Using the motion detector, displacement was determined, which could then be used to determine the spring constant from Hooke’s law. The force and acceleration were also collected using the force sensor and motion detector. Graphs produced of force versus position could be integrated to find the work done on the spring over certain intervals. The slope of the linear fit of this graph could also be used to produce the spring constant. Finally, the elastic potential energy stored in the spring could be determined from the aforementioned data.

During the second part of the experiment, the force sensor was used to push and thus accelerate a cart on the frictionless track toward a motion detector. The measured weight of the cart and final velocity could then be used to determine the change in kinetic energy of the cart. The work applied could again be determined by taking an integral over the time period in which the cart was pushed and accelerated with the force sensor.

The data collected for part one seems fairly conclusive. The determined spring constant of 81.668 N/m is comparable to known spring constants. The values for work extrapolated by integrating the graphs of force versus position are extremely close to the calculated values for work, or potential energy. The values of 0.1779 and 0.20 J, 0.8080 and 0.80 J, and 2.152 and 2.16 J are nearly identical, which shows part one of the experiment was performed rather well (or luckily). In regards to part two of the experiment, the work done on the cart found by integrating the graph of force versus position, 0.04796 J, is almost twice as large as the calculated change in kinetic energy, 0.027 J. The only way that this could be accounted for is if the wrong interval was used for the integral on the graph. Looking at the graph, it seems like the integral taken should have been from the start to the top of the peak, and not the whole peak.

Equations

W = F * s

W = ∆PE + ∆KE

∆PE = ½ kx²

∆KE = ½ mv²

F = -kx

Unlike the well know and oft studied chemistry of double bonds between carbons, the chemistry of boron-boron double bonds is for the most part unexplored. It is believed that boron should behave similarly to carbon due to its relativity to the element on the periodic table. Anions containing boron double bonds, specifically [R₂BBR­­₂]^2-, have in the past been predicted to be possible structures of interest to synthesize in the laboratory, however such efforts have failed for the most part.

It was then proposed to explore neutral diborenes, even though they in theory should be highly reactive compounds due to their triplet ground states and two one-electron π-bonds according to molecular orbital theory. The electron deficiency in this structure could however be stabilized by the addition of Lewis base ligands. The stabilizing ability of different ligand groups were assessed, including CO and NHC, which were chosen based on their strong electron donating capabilities. The ligand group that ultimately experimentally produced an actual neutral diborene was :C{N(2,6-PRⁱ₂C₆H₃)CH}₂. Previous work from using this ligand group for stabilizing carbenes suggested that this would be a potential stabilizing ligand for a diborene.

This compound, R(H)B=B(H)R, where R is the aforementioned ligand group, was synthesized beginning with RBBr₃ and KC₈ in diethyl ether. Two products were isolated from this reaction, including the desired diborene R(H)B=B(H)R. It was shown that a ratio of 1:5.4 of RBBr₃ to KC₈ yielded the highest percentage of R(H)B=B(H)R (12%). Any excess amount of RBBr₃ over this ratio resulted in a decrease of R(H)B=B(H)R and thus in increase of the other product, R(H)₂B-B(H)₂R.

A few methods were utilized in order to determine the chemical makeup of these products. NMR resonances of RBH₃, R(H)₂B-B(H)₂R, and R(H)B=B(H)R were respectively reported to be -35.38, -31.62, and +25.30 ppm. The ¹¹B signal of R(H)B=B(H)R produced a quartet, while the other two compounds elicited singlets. This alone could suggest double bond character between borons.

X-ray structural analysis shows a bond distance of 1.828 Å for R(H)₂B-B(H)₂R. This number seems to be on point with calculated B-B bond lengths for similar structures such as the CO-ligated analogue (1.819 Å) and an activated m-terphenyl based diborate (1.83 Å). Crystallization of R(H)B=B(H)R reveals B-C bond distances of 1.547 Å, which is marginally shorter than that of the other molecules. In addition to this, it is calculated that the angles between the C₃N₂ carbene rings and the core are strikingly different than that of the other compounds used and produced. Finally, the B=B bond distance in R(H)B=B(H)R was measured to be much shorter than the B-B distance reported in R(H)₂B-B(H)₂R, again implying a double bond.

DFT computations were also used to support the nature of R(H)B=B(H)R. The analysis was performed on the simplified model, where R=:C(NHCH)_2­. The experimental bond lengths for the non-simplified model seem to be in concordance with the computed B-B and B-C bond lengths, and well as the B-B-C bond angle calculated from the simplified model analyzed using DFT. The bond character of these bonds was also delved into via HOMO representations of the compounds among other computational techniques.

In conclusion, the authors of the paper were able to successfully prove that they had synthesized and characterized the first neutral diborene compound. They also ventured into the nature of the elusive boron-boron double bond. Though it was not necessarily expected that this phenomenon could feasibly be synthesized due to the expected reactivity of the boron-boron double bond, these chemists found a way to isolate the compound. In context to the larger field of chemistry, I suppose that the authors could determine other possible ligand groups that would produce a stable neutral diborene. They could also venture into increasing the percent yield, as 12% is on the low side. Finally, they could explore other group 13 elements, such as Al and Ga to see if they can replicate similar double bond properties.

Purpose

To determine the relationship between force, mass, and acceleration using a cart attached to a pulley with varying weights.

Hypothesis

If the mass of the weights attached to the pulley is increased, the force exerted on the cart and the acceleration of the cart will also increase.

Labeled Diagrams

See attached sheet.

Data

Graphs

See attached sheets.

Questions

1. Is the graph of force vs. acceleration for the cart a straight line? If so, what is the value of the slope?

Yes, the graph produces nearly a straight line; the correlation for a linear fit is 0.9787. The value of the slope is 0.6129 N/(m/s^2).

2. What are the units of the slope of force vs. acceleration graph? Simplify the units of the slope to fundamental units (m, kg, s). What does the slope represent?

The units of the slope of force vs. acceleration are N/(m/s^2). This simplifies to kg. The slope represents the mass of the pulley.

3. What is the total mass of the system (both with and without extra weight) that you measured?

The total mass of the system without the extra weight was 0.6759 kg and the mass of the system with the extra weight (300 g) was 0.9916 kg, which seems to make sense. 0.9916 kg is almost exactly 300 g more than 0.6759 kg.

4. How does the slope of your graph compare (percent difference) with the total mass of the system that you measured?

The slope of the graph without any added weights was 0.6129 kg, which is a 9.78% difference. The slope of the graph with the added weights was 0.8939 kg, which is a 10.36% difference.

5. Are the net force on an object and the acceleration of the object directly proportional?

Yes, as the net force is increased, the acceleration is also increased.

6. Write a general equation that relates all three variables: force, mass, and acceleration.

F = ma

Conclusion

Lab Summarized

The overall goal of the lab was to determine and show the relationship between force, mass, and acceleration. The goal was achieved using a cart and pulley system with varying weights to measure force and acceleration. The forces and accelerations collected were then graphed against each other the construct a linear fit line, whose slope showed the mass of the system (the cart, sensor, and any added weights). This value could then be compared to the mass calculated from the force of the free hanging system. The force and acceleration from each trial run could also be analyzed to show any relationship between the two values.

The data collected seemed to show a direct correlation between force and acceleration. Thus, the stated hypothesis was confirmed that if the force was increased, the acceleration would also increase. The compared values for the masses of the cart systems were about 10% different in each case. For the trial without any added weight, the calculated value of 0.6759 kg is 9.78% different from the extrapolated value of 0.6129 kg. In regards to the trial with the added weight, the calculated value of 0.9916 kg is 10.36% different than the extrapolated value of 0.8939 kg. This error could have been caused by a number of factors. For instance, the air resistance from the weight on the pulley dropping could have caused error, and any possible friction from the track could have attributed to this, too. It could also be thought that if the pulley did not drop straight downward, i.e. it was swaying at all, this would have further error. Lastly, if the rope was not completely taught when the system was put in motion, that could have caused error as well.

Equations

F = ma

a = 9.8 m/s^2

N/(m/s^2) = kg

This is a PowerPoint presentation and accompanying quiz.

Introduction

The proposed particle in a box experiment uses theories from quantum mechanisms in order to determine and prove the behavior of a molecule. In the experiment performed, various dye molecules were observed using a Spectronic 21 spectrophotometer to determine their wavelengths of maximum absorption. The spectrophotometer emits light through the sample and uses a detector to measure the absorbance through a range of wavelengths. The “box” is considered to be the space between the nitrogens of the dye molecules, where the behavior of the molecules is observed. Upon measuring different concentrations of the dye molecules with the Spectronic 21, standard linear plots of absorbance versus concentration could then be graphed. These plots could then be used to establish that the dyes follow Beer’s law, A = εbc. The measured wavelengths of maximum absorption could then be compared to the theoretical values, which can be found using the following equations:

λ_max = 8ml²c (p + 3)² / [h(N+1)]

λ_max = 8ml²c (p + 3 + α)² / [h(p+4)]

where h = Planck’s constant, m = mass of an electron, c = speed of light, l = distance between the nitrogens, N = number of electrons in the entire molecular orbital π system, p = number of carbon atoms, and α = extra distance the conjugate electrons go beyond the terminal nitrogens. These equations are derived from the basics of quantum mechanics. By comparing the measured values to the calculated values, one can validate the theories of quantum mechanics and also determine α.

Procedure

To begin, 1 L of 1 x 10^-6 M solutions were prepared using the following compounds: 1,1’-diethyl-4,4’-cyanine iodide, 1,1’-diethyl-4,4’-carbocyanine iodide, and 1,1’-diethyl-4,4’-dicarbocyanine iodide. Then, the following dilutions of each of those solutions were prepared: 100%, 50%, 25%, 10%, and 5%. Each of the dilutions was then analyzed using a Spectronic 21 spectrophotometer to determine their measured absorbance and wavelength of maximum absorption. These measured values were saved on the computer and later analyzed.

Results

Calculations

λ max _(calculated) =

8 (9.1 x 10^-31 kg) (1.42 x 10^-10 m)² (2.998 x 10⁸ m/s) (7 + 3) ² / [ (6.626 x 10^-34 m²kg/s) (10 + 1) ]

λ max _(calculated) = 6.04 x 10^-7 m (1 nm / 10^-9 m) = 604 nm

 

λ max _(measured) =

8 (9.1 x 10^-31 kg) (1.42 x 10^-10 m)² (2.998 x 10⁸ m/s) (7 + 3 + α) ² / [ (6.626 x 10^-34 m²kg/s) (10 + 1) ]

α = 0.001628

 

Percent Error = | λ max _(calculated) – λ max _(measured) | / λ max _(calculated) x 100%

| 604 -595 | / 604 x 100% = 1.49%

 

Conclusions

The calculated λ max values were extremely close to the measured λ max values. The percent error was 1.49% for cyanine iodide, 3.49% for carbocyanine iodide, and 6.22% for dicarbocyanine iodide. These results seem very good considering the laboratory conditions; they are nearly the best results we could have hoped for. This seems to show the equations derived from quantum mechanics are indeed valid. However, the measured λ max values are all less than the calculated λ max values, which should not have been the case. The measured λ max values should have been greater than the calculated λ max values in order to account for α, the extra length past the terminal nitrogens. This in turn made the values for α all negative. The dyes all seems to follow Beer’s law, as shown by the high R² values calculated by plotting the absorbance versus concentration for each dye. It was odd that the absorbance reading for dicarbocyanine iodide exceeded a value of 1. Normally this should never happen; 1 should be the maximum absorbance value. This may be accounted for by the spectrophotometer not being correctly calibrated.

This was created because my roommate’s rambunctious friends destroyed the seasonal decorations in our hallway and the RA couldn’t figure out who did it so everyone had to write 5 reasons why SJU is a great place to go to school.

It has oft been debated whether or not there is justification behind the taking of a human being’s life via the assistance of a physician. This procedure has been reserved for unique situations, but even still, the allowance of this practice has opened a Pandora’s Box; there are innumerable legal and moral questions that have arisen and foreseen problems that have developed. Currently, physician assisted suicide is only legal in the Netherlands, and in the United States it is has limited practice in Oregon with the state’s Death with Dignity Act (Dieterle 2007, 127). The Supreme Court has ruled that there is no right for physician assisted suicide in the Constitution, but individual states have the right to decide whether or not to allow it (Hendin 2008, 121). By studying the effect of permitting the procedure in these limited samples, the experts on the subject have drawn some conclusions regarding the morality and legality of physician assisted suicide.

J.M. Dieterle, a specialist on the topic, argues that even though he cannot provide any affirming arguments for legalizing physician assisted suicide, there are not enough sufficient arguments against it, so therefore it should become legalized. Dieterle first says that using Netherlands, which has been practicing physician assisted suicide for over four decades, as a model to draw predications from is not valid, for a few reasons. He states that the Netherlands has a socialized medical system, which makes extraordinary situations involving physician suicide less likely. The United States has a free-market health care system, thus making it unreasonable to draw predictions from results in the Netherlands; it would be like comparing apples and oranges. Secondly, he points out that euthanasia was legalized at the same time physician assisted suicide was legalized in the Netherlands. This fact may lead to more extreme situations than when only physician assisted suicide is allowed. However, Dieterle argues that the studies from Oregon’s Death with Dignity Act are perfectly acceptable for formulating predictions on the implications of legalizing physician assisted suicide in the United States (Dieterle 2007, 128).

The basic requirements to become eligible for physician assisted suicide in Oregon are that the patient much be at least 18 years old, capable of making and communicating health care decision, and have been diagnosed with a terminal illness that gives them less than six months to live (Dieterle 2007, 128). There are a few nuances in the law and process, but those are the general requirements. One of the arguments that naysayers of physician assisted suicide provide is the thought that nonvoluntary and involuntary euthanasia will undoubtedly arise from a result of legalization of the procedure (Dieterle 2007, 129). They say that the next step from allowing the patient to make a decision about their own life is that someone else will gain the power to make that decision. Dieterle argues that there have been no signs of anything like this happening in Oregon. There are specific rules in place to prevent euthanasia from occurring. The patient must make two oral and one written request for physician assisted suicide, and the doctors take other precautions to make sure the patient is thinking with a clear head. In over ten years, there have yet to be any problems of this sort in Oregon.

Opponents of physician assisted suicide also argue that the law will likely be abused if it is legalized (Dieterle 2007, 131). One specific breach of law discussed is that patients might be pressured by family members or insurance companies to undergo the procedure. Family members and insurance companies may rather not pay the expenses to take care of a terminally ill person and would rather they die. Inspecting studies in Oregon, Dieterle says that there are precautions in place to make sure this does not happen. Data shows that 36% of the persons seeking a lethal dose of medication cited “burden on family, friends/caregivers” as one of their reasons for undergoing the procedure, but that does not necessarily mean they were pressured by those peoples. Additionally, almost all patients cited their poor quality of life as one of the primary reasons for undergoing physician assisted suicide (Dieterle 2007, 132). Thus, it does not appear that any of the patients in Oregon sought death solely because of pressure from others.

Another argument made against the legalization of physician assisted suicide is that it will lessen the value of life, thus making it in a way less harsh to kill someone, so homicides will rise (Dieterle 2007, 133). Dieterle says that if this were true, then it would be expected to see a rise in homicide rates in Oregon since the passing of the Death with Dignity Act. However, the opposite if found; homicide rates have decreased. Of course, it is difficult to draw a direct correlation between the two instances. It is pointed out that homicide rates have not dropped as much in states surrounding Oregon, and that homicide rates in the Netherlands are very low compared to most countries (Dieterle 2007, 134). These facts seem to dismiss the argument.

It is argued that the legalization of physician assisted suicide will make doctors less willing to “do their job” and work to save the patient, but instead encourage the patient to simply let go and die (Dieterle 2007, 133). However, as Dieterle points out, evidence from cases in Oregon and the Netherlands seems to dismiss this as a possibility. Data shows that 88% of physicians polled in Oregon had sought to improve their knowledge of medicine for the terminally ill, and 86% had some measure of confidence in medicines designed for the terminally ill. Studies in the Netherlands show improvement in terminal care. Thus, the argument that doctors will put less effort into aiding the terminally ill appears to be invalid.

Yet another case against physician assisted suicide is made stating that patients will lose hope too soon with suicide as an option, and will want to take “the easy way out” (Dieterle 2007, 134). Again, studies show that the actual number of terminally ill patients that request lethal medications is almost negligible. In Oregon between 1998 and 2004, only 208 terminally ill patients elected for physician assisted suicide while 64,706 other patients suffered from the same diseases and chose not to undergo the procedure. Interviews with doctors show that the patients that requested physician assisted suicide were described not as being depressed and without hope, but “feisty” and “unwavering.” It is noted that patients often have more hope in Oregon and the Netherlands because physician assisted suicide is an option, so they are comforted by the fact that in the future if the pain ever becomes unbearable, they know they will not have to suffer longer than needed.

Dieterle then dismisses the argument that improvement in palliative and terminal care will cease is physician suicide is legalized (Dieterle 2007, 134). He highlights the fact that of the 208 patients in Oregon that underwent the procedure, 86% of them were enrolled in hospice programs. This seems to suggest that because there still is a need for palliative care, it will improve. Palliative care in the Netherlands is said to have been continually improving, and they have allowed physician assisted suicide for several decades. These facts refute the argument quite handily. Finally, Dieterle puts down the argument that citizens will begin to fear hospitals and medical personnel if physician assisted suicide is allowed (Dieterle 2007, 135). Opponents say that people will fear going to the hospital in anxiety that they will be killed against their own will. It has difficult to gauge exactly how people would react if the procedure were to be legalized, but the limited cases in Oregon show no signs of this possible apprehension.

Of course, there is limited data to draw inferences from, but Dieterle seems convinced that all the arguments made against the legalization of physician assisted suicide can logically be refuted. He uses data from studies in the Netherlands to support his arguments, even though one of his first statements is that the situation in is not entirely comparable to the United States. The results from the Death with Dignity Act are in all likelihood too limited to drawn any definite conclusions. Still, Dieterle is adamant that all opposing arguments are weak. In conclusion, he admits he does not have any positive arguments for making physician assisted suicide legal, but since the opposing arguments are not strong, that it should be legalized (Dieterle 2007, 139). Dieterle seems to take the approach that the procedure is innocent until proven guilty, in a way; that is it should become legalized and stay legalized unless it becomes a problem.

I agree with Dieterle that physician assisted suicide should become legalized, but for different reasons. I feel that the needs of the patient should be first and foremost, so therefore if they want to put an end to their suffering, they should be able to make that choice. If patients are allowed to refuse treatment, then why should they not be allowed to take lethal medication? The end result of death would be the same, but the path leading up to it would be much different. If the patient refuses treatment, they would likely endure a drawn out period of much pain and suffering before they actually die. If the patient is given a dose of lethal medication, the death would be much swifter and peaceful. The patient should be allowed to have that freedom; after all, they are the one that is ill, not the doctors or authorities.

People may argue that allowing physician assisted suicide will create a mess and lead to involuntary euthanasia, but I believe that as long as proper measures are put in place, this will never happen. Oregon has plenty of nuisances built into the Death with Dignity Act to prevent exploitation of the procedure. As long as these rules and regulations are strictly followed, there should be no foreseen problems of misuse. Physician assisted suicide should be viewed in a positive light. In a world where it is considered a failure when a doctor in unable to save a patient, it should be seen as a success when a patient is allowed to die on their own terms.

Bibliography

Dieterle, J.M.. “Physician Assisted Suicide: A New Look at the Arguments.” Bioethics 21(2007): 127-139.

Hendin, Herbert. “Physician-Assisted Suicide In Oregon: A Medical Perspective.” Issues in Law & Medicine 24(2008): 121-145.