A few weeks ago, a New Mexico district court ruled that a terminally ill person has the right to physician assistance in dying. This ruling has the potential to make New Mexico one of the five states that allows "aid in dying" in the United States. Such actions were illegal throughout the country until Oregon legalized the practice in 1997. While opponents believe that assisting another person in ending his or her own life is immoral under all circumstances, proponents argue that the ability to "die with dignity" is a fundamental human right.
The New York Times published an article over the weekend about Robert Mitton and his fight to receive "aid in dying" that gives a more personal perspective to the controversy. Mitton needs major heart surgery to save his life, but has chosen not to have that surgery because of the rough recovery process that he anticipates will follow. Without the surgery, doctors estimate that he only has six months left to live. Because aid in dying is not legal in Colorado, Mitton is considering taking matters into his own hands by means of imported lethal drugs or a chemical overdose. (The article contains more details.)
What are your personal views on this topic? If you do not wish to share your personal views, what are your views/predictions about government policy regarding this topic? Should legalization of this practice extend to Mitton and others who share his circumstance? Is there a difference between "aid in dying" and "physician-assisted suicide"?
Article 1: NYT
Article 2: CNN
Photo: New York Times
6 comments:
Personally I think that people should have the right to die. I think that it's illogical and immoral to force a person to live against his will. Firstly, that just seems cruel to keep someone living in pain. Secondly, denying someone aid in dying could possibly lead that person to act on his own (as Mitton), potentially endangering others. And, as a less obvious point, denying assisted suicide can be discriminatory (or at least unfair): let's say someone with some physical disability wishes to end his life, but can't because the state prohibits it. If he's incapable of taking matters into his own hands, then he's forced to continue living a life that he doesn't want to live. A physically capable person in the same situation can choose to end his own life without assistance. The discrepancy seems pretty unfair to me. I think everyone should be able to determine how they live, and since death is a part of life, people should have control over that aspect of life too.
Quinn makes strong points, and I generally agree with them; those who wish to end their suffering as painlessly as possible should have the right to do so. I see this as a privacy issue, with constitutional grounds similar to those found in Roe v. Wade and Griswold v. Connecticut. However, to avoid repeating Quinn’s ideas, I would like to discuss the wording controversies surrounding this issue.
As demonstrated by the Gallup poll results (NY Times article), people react in a range of ways depending on whether it is presented as doctors “ending a patient’s life by painless means” or doctors “helping a patient commit suicide.” The rate of people in support of these procedures was significantly higher when described as the former. If you look at the forms required to obtain the medication in Oregon, the top reads: “Request for medication to end my life in a human [humane?] and dignified manner.”
I agree with Quinn. Perhaps the most fundamental of all rights is the right to life, and usually the right to something implies its inverse also. Just as the government cannot compel speech, I do not believe that the government can compel life. Furthermore, mandating that someone be kept alive can be cost prohibitive upon the family, and (as many terminal illnesses are) costs increase dramatically as the disease gets progressively worse. In essence, what this system instead provides incentive for people to commit suicide by themselves rather than undergoing a safer and calmer medical procedure.
Nathan makes a solid point about the cost burdens on families.
I came across this during some research for a MUN position paper:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-26181615
It seems that in Belgium, Parliament has just approved a law that will allow terminally ill children to undergo euthanasia, which has been legal for adults in Belguim for the last 12 years. Yet while euthanasia, yet another way of referring to physician assisted suicide, is legal in Belgium, it is not without controversy. I understand the points that representatives of the church make when they say that teenagers and children cannot always make that large of a decision given their age. However, Belgium requires several steps before euthanasia can be considered. The patients in question must be terminally ill, be suffering "unbearable" physical pain, and ask repeatedly for the procedure. After that, the parents, doctors, and psychiatrists must agree to the procedure. While I believe adults should be able to make their own decisions regarding their lives, I support this procedure for minors, especially since they are more legally and emotionally attached to their parents.
Most people have never been put in a life or death situation, So how could you possibly understand this point of view?
While I truly believe that people who have a terminal illness like pancreatic cancer should not have to suffer the last few weeks of their lives I feel that Roberts situation is unique.
I have given up on trying to save Robert’s life but let me explain where he could be hurting other People.
People who need this lifesaving operation are scared to death the 1st time around, so they go on the Internet looking for information and find heart surgery forum sites. Like http://www.heartvalvepatients.org/hvp/index.php or http://www.valvereplacement.org/forums/forum.php etc... (There are many).
It is at these sites where they find information from people who have already gone through the same thing. And it’s here they find encouragement they need to think “hey maybe my life is not over after all”.
I understand we have the freedom to say think or do whatever we want to in this country as long as we are not physically hurting others and it is because of these freedoms I choose not to purposely mislead or deceive people.
Robert’s story and website has not only inaccuracies but he has flat out lied about the surgery.
I realize this is a strong accusation and hope I am wrong, but I’m really having a hard time wrapping my head around this only because I have firsthand experience with this issue.
My last aortic surgery being just 15 months ago.
Call me a skeptic. But with all of the paypal links to donate now on his website, I wonder if this is easy money for him because he knows that people are good hearted and compassionate, then all of a sudden a “change of heart" about the surgery. Why would anyone choose to die if they did not have to and why tell the world about it?
His site is enough to scare the crap people who need to have this surgery into making a bad decision.
Once again I hope I am wrong but I am basing these accusations on the fact that I know there is false information on his site and it can be easily be proven.
It is not only me that feels this way but also others I have shared Robert’s story and website on other heart surgery forum websites.
I originally was trying to gather more support for him from people who have been his shoes, and this is where I began to receive doubt and suspicion from other heart surgery patients who also have direct experience with his same situation.
In Oregon and Washington State where you have a right to die you must go through a screening process first to make sure that you’re not just mentally depressed. Robert does not have to die and yet he has chosen to.
This is why it is so hard to get the right to die legislation on the books. I don’t think Roberts situation warrants the right to die.
I have had 2 arctic valve replacements one just 15 months ago and because of the new technologies and procedures I was walking around my hospital room in just one day and was ready to leave the hospital in just three days and in five weeks was pulling my camper around the country, vacationing, camping and swimming.
Post a Comment