As written, the Oregon act allows assistance only for Oregon residents. The act stipulates that terminally ill adults have a right to request a lethal dose of prescription drugs if the patient is of sound mind and two doctors judge that the patient has less than six months to live. The law requires that doctors make a determination that patients are not depressed or afflicted by mental illness. Physicians are to impose a 15-day waiting period before completing the drug prescription.
Should there be attempts by other states to legalize physician aid in dying, commentators think that those states will structure their procedures in a manner similar to Oregon’s because the Oregon model has withstood exhaustive scrutiny by the federal government and been validated (Jackson & Murphy, 1998). Before I continue, it should be noted that those who favor euthanasia endorse what is technically referred to as voluntary positive euthanasia. To date, there has been no support for involuntary positive euthanasia.
This distinction means that those who favor euthanasia assert that competent adults who are aware, alert, and emotionally stable have a right to end their own lives by direct actions undertaken for this purpose and also have a right to instruct another person to carry out the death-dealing action. On the other hand, there is no support for causing the deaths of people who do not request euthanasia, i. e. , there is no support for involuntary positive euthanasia, regardless of the extent of a person’s pain or deterioration.
(Kevorkian, 2006). Proposed Solution In order to determine whether or not the practice of euthanasia is morally appropriate or inappropriate, one should consider the arguments for and against it. As it happens, analyzing argumentation is a complex undertaking because there are several different components to both the positive and negative cases and valid points are made by both sides. Let me consider in the two most important arguments against and for euthanasia in giving my proposed solution. (1) Against. God has dominion over life’s end.
Humans should not intrude into this area. This argument suggests that, as is written in the bible, “There is a time to die,” and that only God knows what that time will be. For some, God actually sets the time; for others, only God knows when death will occur. Most people who ask physicians how long they will live with a terminal illness, or how long they can expect their loved one to continue to live after a poor prognosis is pronounced, are told what the averages are, followed by a disclaimer that no one knows exactly how long it will be.
People who hold this argument think that this is as it should be, that death should come at its own time and that God’s mysterious role in regard to life’s final moments needs to be respected. (1) For. God’s dominion is irrelevant to nonbelievers. In addition, some people believe in a God who would not want dying prolonged. This rejoinder makes us aware that we live in a secular, pluralistic society in which civil matters should not be decided on the basis of the religious beliefs of some, or even of most, of the citizens.
Therefore, amending medical ethics and civil law so that euthanasia becomes permissible should not be hampered based on religious sentiments. The second part of this rejoinder challenges people to examine their underlying concept of God and suggests that perhaps God is less interested in seeing life played out until the last breath than in the merciful release of suffering dying people. The point of this argument is to show that it is as likely that God is on the side of those who favor euthanasia as that God is opposed to euthanasia.