Sunday, August 9, 2009
Euthanasia fight
Euthanasia has often been a heated topic that has fueled a political debate. However, I personally believe that this is something that should only end up being a moral debate, not a legal one. It is the sole responsibly of our government should be to develop and enforce the laws that are in place to ensure that individuals do not cross the line and use it as an excuse to murder an individual. One example of this could have been when the state of Oregon legalized Physician Assisted Suicide(PAS), known as the "Death with Dignity Act". The act required that an individual must go before two separate physicians who would both have to find that the individual would have less then six months to live. If it would be determined that an individual was a candidate for the process, the physician would write out a prescription for lethal medication. However, it would be up to the individual that wanted to take the medication or not. Thus, leaving the final choice up to the patient themselves about whether or not they would want to put an end to their pain or suffering. As of the year 2008, the state of Oregon still allowed for PAS and out of the entire state, only 88 prescriptions had been written. Also since 1997 which was the year that the state enabled the act, only 401 individuals considered it as a possible option. This is an example of how government would regulate euthanasia without being able to have a say in the process. This keeps it a personal choice and does not allow for the government to intervene unless their is an abuse of the system.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I understand the where you are coming from. However, do the physicians just write out the prescription without any consulting with the patient? How does that come up? “Hey, we accessed your condition and we feel its best you end your pain now rather than later.” A prescription is a recommendation. Is it not? I understand what the above is getting at, but I just feel that this PAS act is an encouragement of death. I do not want that to be the message for those facing fatality.
ReplyDeleteWhen does a person go against the recommendations of their physician? Usually, you are hoping for some sort of diaganosis. I understand that if they were to tell you that it is best to end your pain before you begin to suffer, that you may want to take that as more of recommendations than an order. I agree that the PAS Act is an encouragement for death and that it is immoral to have just two physicians legally decide that it would it would be more beneficial to ones overall well being to end their life. There needs to be another route for those who are terminal.
ReplyDeleteI can speak personally from experience. As far as I know, I am not going to die in six months, but assisted suicide has been running topic in my family for over a year. I have multiple sclerosis and have already been on and off two of the five FDA treatments. I was allergic to one and told my neurologist that he could take the second one (which made me very sick) and shove it... So yes, some people do go against the recommendations of their physicians. And by the way, of the three remaining treatments - I am unable to tolerate two of them and the last one could give me a fatal (and incurable) brain infection...yay. And strictly statistically speaking, if I am not treated I have an average life span of 25 years after my diagnosis. That little morbid tidbit is also a warning to never ask a neurologist to borrow one of his medical journals.
ReplyDeleteBut people really don't die from MS that much now with new treatments on the market, but there are no treatments that really work for the progressive forms - and those are the nasty ones. I know that if something particularly unbearable happens to me, I'm not going to wait for a natural death. Would you want to live out the rest of your life on a respirator because you'd choke on your own spit without it?
I have not discussed this all with my neurologist for obvious reasons, but I have read a lot on the subject. Most doctors would not just write a prescription for a terminally ill patient and not discuss it with them - lethal or not. Doctors working with terminally ill or chronically ill tend to be a bit more sympathetic than a general PCP. This isn't an encouragement for death.
If a doctor told you that you will die in six months in physical pain, what would be the first thing to come to you mind? I'm sure if the doctor then asked you, is there anything I can do for you? - you might answer with "can you kill me now?" I do feel that there should be a psychologist's along with the physicians' opinions too. But what other "route" would there be for these terminally ill? A cure? A treatment that just prolongs their life and most likely their psychological suffering?
As long as the doctor is not making the decision without the patient's full understanding and agreement, then I see no problem with this. It is a much better alternative than having the patient attempt suicide on their own and living the rest of their few months of life in a psychiatric ward.