Full Version: The Legality vs. Morality
America's Debate > Archive > Assorted Issues Archive > [A] Science and Technology > [A] Health and Medicine
Citizens in the state of Oregon approved Ballot Measure 16 in the 1994-NOV elections, which would have legalized euthanasia under limited conditions. 1 Under the Death With Dignity law, a person who sought physician-assisted suicide would have to meet certain criteria. The person:
must be terminally ill
must have 6 months or less to live
must make two oral requests for assistance in dying
must make one written request for assistance
must convince two physicians that she/he is sincere, is not acting on a whim, and that the decision is voluntary
must not have been influenced by depression
must be informed of "the feasible alternatives, including, but not limited to, comfort care, hospice care and pain control."
must wait for 15 days
If they meet all of these requirements, then they could receive a prescription of a barbiturate that would be sufficient to cause death. Mercy killings by a family member or friend would not be allowed. Assisted suicides of the type performed by Dr. Jack Kevorkian would not be allowed. Physicians would be prohibited from inducing death by injection or carbon monoxide.
Various informal polls in Oregon had consistently shown that most people are in favor of such a law. Most physicians were as well.2
http://www.religioustolerance.org/euth_us1.htm
If a young man suffering from a debilitating, incurable disease asks his doctor or a loved one to help him end his life, that person would likely go to jail for complying with his wishes. If that same young man takes his own life, it wouldn't be criminal in several states. Although illegal, Americans would find the first choice more morally acceptable than the second, legal activity. And, when asked, most Americans would support a law making his first choice legal.
http://www.gallup.com/subscription/?m=f&c_id=13664
What do you think? Should PAS (Physician Assisted Suicide) be legal? If so, should it affect a person's death benefits? What about those who have no insurance and can't afford pain management, should the state foot the bill and assist in their deaths?
must be terminally ill
must have 6 months or less to live
must make two oral requests for assistance in dying
must make one written request for assistance
must convince two physicians that she/he is sincere, is not acting on a whim, and that the decision is voluntary
must not have been influenced by depression
must be informed of "the feasible alternatives, including, but not limited to, comfort care, hospice care and pain control."
must wait for 15 days
If they meet all of these requirements, then they could receive a prescription of a barbiturate that would be sufficient to cause death. Mercy killings by a family member or friend would not be allowed. Assisted suicides of the type performed by Dr. Jack Kevorkian would not be allowed. Physicians would be prohibited from inducing death by injection or carbon monoxide.
Various informal polls in Oregon had consistently shown that most people are in favor of such a law. Most physicians were as well.2
http://www.religioustolerance.org/euth_us1.htm
If a young man suffering from a debilitating, incurable disease asks his doctor or a loved one to help him end his life, that person would likely go to jail for complying with his wishes. If that same young man takes his own life, it wouldn't be criminal in several states. Although illegal, Americans would find the first choice more morally acceptable than the second, legal activity. And, when asked, most Americans would support a law making his first choice legal.
http://www.gallup.com/subscription/?m=f&c_id=13664
What do you think? Should PAS (Physician Assisted Suicide) be legal? If so, should it affect a person's death benefits? What about those who have no insurance and can't afford pain management, should the state foot the bill and assist in their deaths?
The law you have cited seems to have enough restrictions built into it to avoid abuses. I would favor such a law. I would also favor using all methods possible to alleviate suffering before invoking such a law. (The restrictions noted seem to take this into account.) There should be no effect on the patient's death benefits. Patients who cannot afford pain control (or other methods of alleviating suffering) should be provided with the necessary medical treatment before being provided with euthanasia. However, there will be situations in which it would be proper for a government agency to provide euthanasia.
This is not right. What if these doctors make a mistake, maybe this person is really depressed, oops. This system also opens up the door for corruption, "Well, Ben Franklin says you should kill me Doc." I can just see depressed people asking to die, when and if the doctor says no, he slips him some cash. Do we really want state sponsored murder]?
CP
CP
Just to put in my two cents. A majority of the people that Dr. Jack Kevorkian helped to kill themselves, had Multiple Sclerosis. One of the documented symptoms of MS is depression. So, would/should Oregon lawmakers automatically restrict people that have fallen victim to MS from ending their life? And wouldn't anybody that has a terrible terminal disease be a least a little depressed? It just seems like an easy out, to deny someone euthinasia based on something as arbitrary as depression.
-Kisov
-Kisov
QUOTE(Kisov @ Jul 9 2003, 03:03 PM)
Just to put in my two cents. A majority of the people that Dr. Jack Kevorkian helped to kill themselves, had Multiple Sclerosis. One of the documented symptoms of MS is depression. So, would/should Oregon lawmakers automatically restrict people that have fallen victim to MS from ending their life? And wouldn't anybody that has a terrible terminal disease be a least a little depressed? It just seems like an easy out, to deny someone euthinasia based on something as arbitrary as depression.
-Kisov
-Kisov
I dunno about that Kisov [welcome back btw], if depressed people were included, every one of them would want euthanasia. Too many curable people would be killed.
CP
Depression does not equate to being suicidal.
It seems that the other requirements would limit "curable" suicides.
It seems that the other requirements would limit "curable" suicides.
I wasn't aware most people suffering from depression were also:
There are regulations in effect or being proposed to restrict physicians from merely assisting in suicide on the sole basis of depression. The idea of slipping a doctor money to do it anyway (proposed by CP) is one that is feasible today without such legislation.
Also, assisted suicide is not "state sponsored murder" as it has been referred to here. It's precisely what it being proposed: assisted suicide. There's a reason suicide isn't considered "self induced homicide" with any notion of charges being brought against the deceased.
QUOTE
...terminally ill
...have 6 months or less to live
...convince two physicians that she/he is sincere, is not acting on a whim, and that the decision is voluntary
...must not have been influenced by depression
...have 6 months or less to live
...convince two physicians that she/he is sincere, is not acting on a whim, and that the decision is voluntary
...must not have been influenced by depression
There are regulations in effect or being proposed to restrict physicians from merely assisting in suicide on the sole basis of depression. The idea of slipping a doctor money to do it anyway (proposed by CP) is one that is feasible today without such legislation.
Also, assisted suicide is not "state sponsored murder" as it has been referred to here. It's precisely what it being proposed: assisted suicide. There's a reason suicide isn't considered "self induced homicide" with any notion of charges being brought against the deceased.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.