The field of medicine, from the earliest of times, are all about saving lives. Assisted suicide, or euthanasia, was commonly perceived to be unethical, until the book “Permitting the Destruction of Life not Worthy of Life” was published in 1920. Since then, euthanasia has been gaining ground in legalizing the practice, starting with the Northern Territories of Australia in 1995. The clash between euthanasia activists and anti-assisted suicide groups focus on the ethical dilemma that the procedure incurs.
The legalization in the state of Washington has raised alarm and sparked even more the debate that has already been ongoing. The legalization of assisted suicide started in 1991 where voter initiative 119 was first shot down by a vote of 54 percent to 46 percent. The initiative would have allowed doctors to provide assisted suicide by a prescription for an “international lethal overdose of drugs.
” The initiative was attempted three more times to turn euthanasia into a form of medical treatment. All three attempts were a failure. The latest move for voters was initiative 1000 (I-1000), also known as “Death with Dignity Act,” appeared in the 2008 Washington State general election ballot. I-1000 is identical with Oregon’s assisted suicide law of the same name in 1997.
The law includes (a) allowing the physicians to “provide a prescription for lethal medication upon repeated voluntary and informed requests from a competent adult terminally-ill Oregon resident, (b) a fifteen-day waiting period between the first request and the provision of drugs, (c) that their life expectancy should be six (6) months or below for them to be eligible for euthanasia, (d) that how it’s administered is up to the physician (except for the explicit prohibition of lethal injection), (e) the need for it to be self-administered, (f) the state paying for the patient to undergo assisted suicide, and (g) the destruction of records after the annual reports are submitted. I-1000 succeeded in the ballots by a vote of 57. 91 percent to 42. 09 percent, thus allowing and legalizing doctors to practice assisted suicide on their patients. All state agencies are now required to refer to assisted suicide as “obtaining and self-administering life-ending medication. ” Conservatives and ethics groups have often stood up against the onslaught of legalization by referring to their high regard for the value of life and that euthanasia cheapens it. Liberals, on the other hand, push for the right of choice, specifically regarding the patients’ quality of life. The main argument focuses on the moral legitimacy of the act.
The most common scenario given is a terminally ill patient requesting to have his life ended for various reasons ranging from pain to finances. The bulwark of pro-euthanasia advocates rest on ethical concepts such as autonomy, rights and best interests. According to Sanders and Chaloner, arguments that favor voluntary euthanasia focus on “individual autonomy and the perceived obligation of health professionals to respect patients’ informed choices. ” Euthanasia, for the liberals, is the best way to relieve the suffering that patients are going through. In addition to this, voluntary euthanasia also grants the patient the right to decide when to die.
This procedure is considered more humane than prolonging the agony of patients and/or giving patients false hope, only to die in a matter of time. These arguments support the idea that people are autonomous, requiring people to be rational in order to think, act and make decisions. This line of reasoning, for anti-euthanasia advocates, is nothing but a slippery-slope argument. They argue that any law that allows euthanasia cannot have enough safety nets to ensure that the procedure is not done in the spirit of malpractice. Valid counterarguments include (a) prescribing euthanasia to cut costs rather than doing what’s best for the patient, (b) allowing mentally ill patients to commit suicide, (c) victimizing minorities, people with disabilities and the poor.
The main argument for the opponents of euthanasia is the damaging effects to the individual and society and that they would rather see their healthcare system improved. Their belief is hinged on the value of the “sanctity of life” and that when people administer this form of “treatment,” it is irreversible. Questions: 1. What is the process of the “Death with Dignity Act? ” The process involves the patient (who are deemed to be rational) requesting for the “treatment” from the doctor who will process and give the lethal dose of medication in a span of fifteen days. When received, the patient will administer it to himself however he wants. 2. Should a doctor be obligated to perform assisted suicide? No.
With the euthanasia advocating the theme of autonomy and freedom of choice for the patients, this must also extend to the doctors, being rational thinkers as well. Pressure should not be put on medical practitioners to slay their patients if they decide not to kill them. 3. What is the implication of changing the reference to assisted suicide as “obtaining self-administering life-ending medication? ” Changing the name from “assisted suicide” lessens the opposition to the act. It deceives the people from the stand that they take. 4. What are the other dangers of legalizing euthanasia other than the ones stated? • Creates a legal immunity for doctors to kill people • Predictions of a six-month life expectancy can be disregarded because it’s inaccurate