This thread is being initiated for the purpose of generating discussion on a controversial topic of great importance, perhaps the abortion issue of the 21st century.
In the past I have had opportunity to write about ethical issues in terminal health care. I am working on an article specifically dealing with doctor assisted suicide, which I have previously written about.
There are four primary arguments for legalizing physician-assisted suicide. They are:
l. The Mercy Argument, which states that the immense pain and indignity
of prolonged suffering cannot be ignored. We are being inhumane to force people to continue suffering in this way.
2. The Patient's Right to Self-determination. Patient empowerment has been a trend for more than twenty-five years. "It's my life, my pain. Why
can't I get the treatment I want?"
3. The Economics Argument, which notes that the cost of keeping people alive is exceedingly high. Who's footing the bill for the thousands of people being sustained in a persistent vegetative state? Aren't we wasting precious resources when an already used up life is prolonged unnecessarily?
4. The Reality Argument runs like this: "Let's face it, people are
already doing it."
The arguments against legalizing physician- assisted suicide are less well known. Here are the most widely cited concerns:
l. Medical doctors are not trained psychiatrists. Many, if not most, people
have wished they could die rather than face some difficult circumstance
in their lives. Doctors who are given authority to grant this wish may not
always recognize that the real problem is a treatable depression, rather
than the need to fulfill a patient's death wish.
2. How will physician-assisted suicide be regulated? This is Carlos Gomez's argument, developed after investigating the Netherlands' experience, and presented in his book Regulating Death. "How will we assure ourselves that the weak, the demented, the vulnerable, the stigmatized -- those incapable of consent or dissent -- will not become the unwilling objects of such a practice?”
3. The Slippery Slope Argument. A Hemlock Society spokesperson
acknowledges this to be the strongest argument against legalization. In
ethical dialogue, it is conceded that there are situations when an acceptable action should not be taken because it will lead to a course of consequent actions that are not acceptable. Our attitudes toward the elderly, people with disabilities and the devaluation of individuals for the “higher good of society” should be reflected upon. How long will it be before our "right to die" becomes our "duty to die"?
4. The Occasional Miracle Argument. Sometimes remarkable recoveries
occur. Sometimes diagnoses are far afield of the reality. Countless stories could be told. I know a few first hand. How about you?
5. Utilitarian versus sacred view of life. This is probably a subset of
the Slippery Slope argument, focusing on our cultural shift in attitude
toward what it means to be human. Are we important only as long as we are making a contribution to society? Or is value something inherent in our being human? History has shown that when we devalue human beings, we open the door to abuse. The U.S. Supreme Court, in its Dred Scott decision, declared that blacks were not persons. This devaluation helped permit slavery and inhumane treatment of blacks to continue.
6. What effect will this have on doctor/patient trust? People who traditionally rely on their doctors to provide guidance in their health care decisions may become confused, even alarmed, when one of the treatment options presented is the death machine at the end of the hall.
7. What about doctors who don't believe in killing? Will they be required
by law to prescribe a treatment [death] they don't believe in?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Any thoughts or arguments, pro or con, with regard to the above statements are invited. If you have new ideas, or news related to this topic, it is also welcome here.
For example, what companies make the chemicals that are used to end peoples’ lives? Who makes the machines that are used in Oregon, where this practice is currently legal?
Thank you for your contribution to this discussion, which I trust will be civil and informative. |
