Physician-Assisted Suicide Should we Toast to Them or Just Toast Them?

Jennifer Goodwin
Nancy Cook
WR122
13 January 2008

Physician-Assisted Suicide
Should We Toast to Them or Just Toast Them?


Lying in a hospital bed at home, you are trying to decide which part of your body is in the most pain: your back, your head, your legs, or just all over. The pain is overwhelming your thinking; you can’t even speak without it causing more. You have been to a dozen or more doctors and specialist in the last year to know that there is nothing they can do for you. Realizing this, and knowing that you have six more months of excruciating pain that will only worsen, you call upon the only person to help; your doctor, who has been with you since this all began. You ask for certain medications that will end your suffering sooner. You have weighed the pros and cons of this issue for quite sometime, knowing that one day it will come down to making a decision. You take the medicine. Now, the question arises, “Was the doctor who prescribed the medicine right or was he wrong?” Physician-assisted suicide (PAS) is something that I strongly agree on and only as the last resort. I cannot see a person suffer under these circumstances.
For centuries, dating back to Ancient Greece and Rome (around 5th Century B.C.- 1st Century B.C.) the pros and cons of physician-assisted suicide, or PAS, have and still are, an ongoing debate. The pros, to which I agree on, argues that: A person’s right to die: a competent person should have the right to choose death. Compassion: Suffering means more than just pain there are other physical and psychological burdens. Individual liberty vs. state interest: Though society has strong interest in preserving life, that interest lessens when a person is terminally ill and has a strong desire to end life. A complete prohibition on assisted death excessively limits personal liberty. Openness of discussion: Some would argue that assisted death already occurs, albeit in secret. Legalization of PAS would promote open discussions without the fear of criminal charges.
The cons argue that: Sanctity of life, where strong religious and secular traditions are against taking a human life. It is argue that assisted suicide is morally wrong because it contradicts these beliefs. Potential for abuse: This argument is that certain groups of people, lacking access to care and support, may be pushed into assisted death. Professional integrity: Historical ethical traditions of medicine. Fallibility of the profession: Doctors make mistakes. Passive vs. active distinction: The important difference between passively “letting die” by withholding or refusing treatment is justifiable, whereas PAS equated to killing “active” and is not justifiable.
Now, I will concede to the argument on the sanctity of life but with some reserve. Suicide is a sin, but so is suffering in excruciating pain, and the hardships that are put on the family members watching and not being able to relieve it. To me that is a sin. I would not let my family suffer like that. The other arguments concerning potential for abuse and the fallibility of the profession I will refute these with the requirements of the Death with Dignity Act of Oregon.
The only state that has made PAS legal is Oregon. The Oregon statute called “Death with Dignity Act” was voted first in 1994 and again in 1997. Under Oregon’s Death with Dignity Act (DWDA), terminally ill adult Oregonians are allowed to obtain and use prescriptions from their physicians for self-administered, lethal medications. Under the Act, ending one’s life in accordance with the law does not constitute suicide. The DWDA specifically prohibits euthanasia, where a physician or other person directly administers a medication to end another’s life.
The requirements for a patient to request the lethal medications are as follows:
· An adult (18 years of age or older),
· A resident of Oregon,
· Capable (defined as able to make and communicate health care decisions), and
· Diagnosed with a terminal illness that will lead to death within six months.
Patients meeting these requirements are eligible to request a prescription for lethal medication from a licensed Oregon physician. The following steps must be fulfilled to receive a prescription for the lethal medication:
· The patient must make two oral requests to his or her physician, separated by at least 15 days.
· The patient must provide a written request to his or her physician, signed in the presence of two witnesses.
· The prescribing physician and a consulting physician must determine whether the patient is capable.
· If either physician believes the patient’s judgment is impaired by a psychiatric or psychological disorder, the patient must be referred for a psychological examination.
· The prescribing physician must inform the patient of feasible alternatives to DWDA, including comfort care, hospice care, and pain control.
· The prescribing physician must request, but may not require, the patient to notify his or her next-of-kin of the prescription request.
To comply with the law, physicians must report to the Department of Human Services all prescriptions for lethal medications. Physicians and patients who adhere to the requirements of the Act are protected from criminal prosecution, and the choice of DWDA cannot affect the status of a patient’s health or life insurance policies. The Oregon Revised Statutes specify that action taken in accordance with the DWDA does not constitute suicide, mercy killing or homicide under the law. Since this Act was passed in 1997, 292 patients have died under the terms of the law. So, the question is “Was the doctor right or wrong in prescribing the lethal medications?” The doctor was right if he complied with the DWDA and in my heart and soul he was right.