Quick Facts

Some quick facts (history, definitions...) on euthanasia and physician assisted suicide.

FACT #1: The earliest American statute explicitly to outlaw assisting suicide was enacted in New York in 1828

FACT #2: In 1998 U.S. state of Oregon legalizes assisted suicide

FACT #3: Euthanasia by omission is intentionally causing death by not providing necessary and ordinary (usual and customary) care or food and water

FACT #4: Physician assisted suicide is NOT the same as euthanasia

FACT #5: Euthanasia can be conducted either voluntary (with consent) or involuntary (without consent)

FACT #6: The term euthanasia comes from the Greek words "eu"-meaning good and "thanatos"-meaning death

FACT #7: Dr. Jack Kevorkian was a Michigan physician infamous for encouraging and assisting people in committing suicide which resulted in a Michigan law against the practice in 1992

FACT #8: Perhaps the strongest argument made on behalf of legalizing euthanasia or assisted suicide is that it, like abortion, it is a "choice" issue

FACT #9: “I will give no deadly medicine to any one if asked, nor suggest any such counsel” ---The Hippocratic Oath

FACT #10: Although euthanasia and assisted suicide are illegal in Switzerland, assisted suicide is penalized only if it is carried out "from selfish motives."

YouTube Video

Euthanasia - our right to choose the time to die



This was an interesting video because it gives the argument(s) for why voluntary euthanasia should be a right and legalized. The speaker has experienced the pain of losing someone, and she expresses how difficult it was losing her family member in such a painful way. The video discusses since we all have the right to life, we should all have the right to decide our time to die, and when/how we choose to do it. I think this video obviously shows how hard it is for family members to watch loved one's live in pain and then to suffer, and why it would morally and emotionally make sense to legalize euthanasia and physician assisted suicide. After watching the pro's of legalizing these practices, it would be interesting to find a video where someone discussed the con's of the practices (perhaps telling a personal experience where euthanasia was performed and had a negative outcome).

Interlibrary Loan Request

"Euthanasia: The Moral Issues" by Robert M. Baird and Stuart E. Rosenbaum

Although the book discusses how euthanasia and physician assisted suicide has affected society (and individuals) in a more positive way, it also mentions the "wrongfulness" these practices may bring. When discussing the wrongfulness (chapter 11), the book focuses on arguments from three perspectives: nature, self-interest, and practical effects. I found these arguments to be interesting and slightly different from other "negative effects" other authors have talked about referring to euthanasia/physician assisted suicide.

Argument from nature: The argument says that euthanasia does violence to the natural goal of survival (the natural inclination to continue living). Euthanasia is "literally acting against nature because all the processes of nature are bent towards the end of bodily and survival and euthanasia defeats these subtle mechanisms in a way that disease and injury might not." I feel as though this argument does make sense, but should not be considered in all cases. Although our body gives natural signs to fight back to survive, a patient may be in too much pain and feel too defeated to continue to try and "fight." The argument should not be made in a situation where the patient may suffer severe critical pain and agony by trying to stay alive, rather than going through with the euthanasia process.

Argument from self-interest: This argument basically says that a decision such as euthanasia would result in final choices; the decision to die would result in death, which is not irreversible and cannot simply be undone. A mistaken diagnosis can be made, and a patient can act on the wrong symptoms given to them. This basically means that many people should not follow the practice of euthanasia/physician assisted suicide because the diagnosis they are acting on may be incorrect, and their self-interest is at stake. If the case is that an incorrect diagnosis is made, or is more than likely incorrect, I do feel this is a valid argument. In most cases, I do not feel that it is the strongest of arguments. In most, if not all cases, medical decisions are not made without research and time. Also, patients considering euthanasia would appear to have an obvious disease or problem, which would most likely mean that the diagnosis is correct. Today, the act of euthanasia and physician assisted suicide has many rules and regulations before actually being performed, so it is too hard to act suddenly on impulse or concern (which the argument is saying patients do).

Argument from practical effects: This argument follows the thought that euthanasia as a policy is a slipper slope. The book says "it could have a corrupting influencce so that in any case that is sever doctors and nurses might not try hard enough to save the patient." If doctors do not take the necessary steps to save one's life because they would just be "better off dead" would result in an overall decline in the quality of medical care. It is argued to be a slipper slope because euthanasia would first be done voluntary, then made directed, then finally to involuntary. Many psychiatrists feel these steps could lead to several "mental" problems being mistaken for medical problems (letting euthanasia and physician assisted suicide available to patients that do not 'really' need it, but just 'think' they do). This argument seems too unrealistic in my opinion because nobody can decide the future of how these practices will turn out; nobody can say that the slipper slop theory will happen for sure. I do agree that there are dangers in legalizing euthanasia and physician assisted suicide, but I do believe that precautions can be made and that allowing the practices could overall benefit many.

I do feel these are valid arguments in some cases, and I can understand why some people believe in these arguments (and these are reasons why they don't agree with euthanasia and physician assisted suicide). However, they have not convinced me enough to change my entire view on these medical practices, which is a more pro-choice stance.

QUIZ

Here is a short quiz on basic euthanasia and physician assisted suicide facts. All answers can be found at medical websites, informational websites/books, legal articles, and also in past posts on this blog.

1. Which state has a (form) of legalized euthanasia?
a. New York
b. Oregon
c. Colorado
d. Rhode Island

2. What kind of consent can euthanasia be issued?
a. Voluntary euthanasia (with consent)
b. Involuntary euthanasia (without consent)
c. No such thing
d. a and b

3. How can euthanasia be conducted?
a. Passively
b. Non-actively
c. Actively
d. a, b, and c

4. What does non-active euthanasia mean?
a. Doctor refuses to treat patient
b. Not a way to be conducted
c. Doctor withdraws life-support
d. Patient runs away from hospital

5. What is the loose tranlastion of euthanasia?
a. "well-death"
b. "young-death"
c. "pain-be-gone"
d. "patient-killing"

6. Is euthanasia and physician assisted suicide exactly the same?
a. Yes; the doctor acts directly in both
b. No; the patient administers the medication in physician assisted suicide
c. They are exactly the same
d. Depends on the doctor

7. On cases such as euthanasia and abortion, Obama is more "pro-choice" and McCain is more "pro-life"
a. False
b. True

8. Oregon has issued a "Death with _______ Act"
a. Compassion
b. Medicine
c. Dignity
d. Oregon has issued no act concerning euthanasia/physician assisted suicide

9. What is "the practice of sedating a terminally ill competent patient to the point of unconsciousness, then allowing the patient to die of her disease, starvation, or dehydration"?
a. Doctor sedation
b. Life-sustaining method
c. Termanation
d. Terminal sedation

10. When was euthanasia first mentioned (whether 'for' or 'against')?
a. The U.S. Constitution
b. Egyption scriptures
c. The Hippocratic Oath
d. English Common Law

Question for student...

Question posted on http://said-k.blogspot.com/

Kcutie said...
It is clear to see that Obama is for allowing the practice of abortion to be legal, and that McCain wants abortion to be banned. However, both seem to agree that a marriage should be between a man and a woman, not people of the same sex. With the different views on abortion, but similar views on marriage, would it still be safe to safe Obama is strictly pro-choice and McCain is strictly pro-life (following mainly the abortion case)? What other situations do you think Obama would consider that McCain would be strongly against?

One thing I learned from this blog was the basis behind the Unruh Civil Rights Act. After a lesbian was denied fertality treatments at North Coast Women's Care Medical Group, she argued in the Supreme Court that the center had violated her rights to receive treatment because of her sexual orientation. The Supreme Court agreed with the women, and said the center must follow the Unruh Civil Rights Act, “in ensuring full and equal access to medical treatment irrespective of sexual orientation, including a right to full medical assistance in establishing a pregnancy.”

Itunes U Podcast

Title: Physician Assisted Suicide: An Analysis of U.S. Supreme Court Precedent

(Bioethics Grand Round)

Author/Speaker: Stewart Albertson

This speech was focused in California, discussing the "California Compassionate Act" that follows the Oregon Death with Dignity act concerning physician assisted suicide. Stewart Albertson talks about understanding the distinction between fundamental rights and ordinary rights under the U.S. Constitution's 14th Amendment substantive due process clause, how physician assisted suicide fits in to Supreme Courts interpretation on what is and what is not a protected fundamental right, and the issue of federalism (the sharing of concurring power between the federal state and local governments). Albertson also discusses the case of Gonzalez v Oregon and how that will impact California's own physician assisted legislation. Albertson also compares the issues with physician assisted suicide with the case in Griswold v Connecticut. This speech is very useful for those interested in learning more about physician assisted suicide because it gives the legal perspective on the issue. It explains how the constitution, federal government, and previous rulings all tie into the matter of physician assisted suicide [especially state to state]. Albertons talks about past issues in this area and how they have been resolved, how the constitution discusses (or does not discuss) this matter, and the power each state has in deciding what laws to allow concerning physician assisted suicide.

An interesting fact(s) that I learned from this podcast dealt with the power that the federal government and states have on certain policies (or don't have in several cases). The states want to retain certain powers; the power that deals with physician assisted suicide is the general police power, which means the state has the right to regulate the health safety and wealthfare of it's citizenry. With physician assisted suicide, the federal government cannot come in and tell the state what they can and cannot do in this area. This is why different states have different laws/regulations/acts concering physician assisted suicide; some may decide that the practice is okay (such as Oregon) and some may decide to put [law] restrictions on allowing physician assisted suicide (such as several states have done).

Comment on blog...

http://www.pallimed.org/2008/10/physician-assisted-suicide-vote-in.html
This blog talked about Washington introducing a new "death with dignity" measure to be decided upon [relating to the post previously posted]. With the election being today, I was wondering how, or if, others thought new proposals (and existing one's such as Oregon's case) discussing euthanasia/physician assisted suicide may pursuade voters.

Kcutie said...
Do you have any comments or feelings about the current Oregon "death with dignity act?" With the election upon us, it is clear that Obama is pro-choice and McCain is pro-life; does this influence your [or do you think it influences others] reason to vote for one or the other candidate? Obama has said that the decision he had made on the Schiavo case [to continue with the euthanasia process] was the worst choice he has ever made, could that also have an effect over how people may vote?
November 04, 2008

Law.com Response

http://www.law.com/jsp/pa/PubArticlePA.jsp?id=1202425218745

The article "Washington weighs lethal meds for terminally ill"discusses that Washington state voters are currently deciding whether to allow doctors to prescribe lethal medication to the terminally ill. The measure would specifically allow physicians in Washington [state] to help terminally ill patients end their lives (the same law Oregon approved in 1994). Between advertisements from both sides (people who support the euthanasia/physician assisted suicide movement and people who do not support the act), $3.5 million has been generated.
The new information I found interesting in this article are the statistics given for people supporting/opposing the measure. Although I tend to be more in favor of physician assisted suicide for terminally ill patients, I had assumed that many others would not want such laws like Oregon's to be made (considering many other states have not adopted the law). An independent pollster found that 57% of voters polled supported Washington's measure, 33% opposed, and only 10% undecided. From the same poll, conducted in September, 16% were leaning towards 'yes' and 10% leaning towards 'no'. I was surprised to see more than 50% had supported the measure, and even more voters were leaning towards 'yes' rather than 'no'.
The article also mentions how "there is that libertarian streak in the northwest..." which may explain why Washington state feels very similar as Oregon on the new measure.
Washington's new proposal is different this time in it that it "would not allow doctors to administer lethal drugs on behalf of patients who couldn't do so themselves."
Considering this article is overall pro-physician assisted suicide, and that I am more pro-choice on patients making medical decisions, it has not changed my mind on any type of views or opinions I have on euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide. I feel as though Washington, and Oregon as well, is not looking at allowing physician-assisted suicide to be taken as a bad thing, but rather to help the terminally ill and decrease suffering in their lives. Like the article mentions, this new measure will not be done "on whim" and many precautions and considerations will be made for each terminally ill patient and their decision. If anything, this article makes my feelings toward euthanasia and physician assisted suicide stronger, because having this option(s) creates more of a freedom and a choice for people who are truly in pain and suffering. I feel as though the United States is about freedom and being "free", including pain-free.