Assisted suicide

[greek302]

Assisted suicide, Are you for or against? The debate starts here


Do terminally-ill patients have the right to take their lives? This question has been debated for centuries. The Greeks believed in the right to a good death, termed euthanasia. An ill person had to petition the magistrates and gain their permission. The Romans also upheld an individual’s right to die nobly if there was reasonable cause. However, when Christianity took hold in the West, suicide was condemned as a sin. The debate continues in the 21st century, and the state of Oregon is at the forefront. Oregon is the only state in the nation that allows a terminally- ill patient to end his/her life with the assistance of a physician. I think this law protects an individual’s right to a dignified and compassionate death. According to the l4th Amendment, the “government shall not deprive an individual of life, liberty or property without due process law.” The right to life can be interpreted as the individual’s right to live and die in dignity without interference by the government. It is a personal right or freedom.

I understand the religious perspective that life is sacred and that God determines the beginning and end of life. In the United States, we must protect the rights of all individuals, whether they are Christian, Buddhists, agnostic or atheist. Because the United States upholds the separation of church and state, terminally-ill patients who are not Christian should have the right to assisted suicide to relieve pain and suffering.

In addition to the religious argument, there is a moral argument. Some will argue that medicine should not be used to end life and that doctors have an obligation to preserve life. However, doctors have a duty also to alleviate pain and suffering and to help the patient die with dignity. Many terminally ill-patients would like to die at home free of life supports and in the care of their family. They want to be aware of their surroundings and the people in their lives. They want to be free to choose such a death.

Assisted suicide will continue to be debated because people have strong religious and moral beliefs that guide their thinking on the subject. But for people who believe that assisted suicide is a moral and humane decision, at least in the state of Oregon, they are free to make that choice.

[HMMcKamikaze]

I think that assisted suicide should be lawful only when the patient is being kept alive by machines, or when they are terminally ill. Its not fair to make them suffer in their last moments on this earth purely because its "morally correct". Its their life, they should be able to decide when its no longer necessary to keep on living it.

[greek302]

Did you read my post? Thats the only way it can be done in the united States.

[Lee1026]

To the moral arugment - shouldn't what a doctor can and can't do from a moral stand point be entirely up to the doctor and the patient and no one else?

[greek302]

yep

[Gaidin]

To the moral arugment - shouldn't what a doctor can and can't do from a moral stand point be entirely up to the doctor and the patient and no one else?

Only to the patient. The doctor's role is to assess and advise.

[HMMcKamikaze]

Well morally thats correct, but i think that if the patient was begging for a peaceful death, it would be the doctor's duty to give them that.

And yes of course i read your post Greek, but it only said that it was so in Oregon and that only 1 out of 50 states, so it could be slightly different for them if it is allowable.

[Lee1026]

Therefore, if we accept my doctrine, then shouldn't the law not ban any form of assisted suicide?

[Irishman]

God has no cares in moral issues as morality is a creation of man.

Assisted suicide is the person's choice and it honestly hurts no one but themselves. If you do not wish to live, by all means one should be able to die. Only in the most extreme cases of pain though, should a doctor or hospital facilitate that request.

[Gwendylyn]

If we follow Lee's doctrine that assisted suicide in all cases should be legal, then we get the issue of healthy or recoverable people getting help in comminting suicide, and patient-doctor confidentiality which prevents family members from knowing their spouse/parent/child/sibling is planning on suicide.

Not a good idea. Also an especially tricky issue with families subsequently bringing up lawsuits against doctors dealing with assisted suicide, regardless of the authorization of the patient.

[Lee1026]

Only to the patient. The doctor's role is to assess and advise.

But if the patient wants to commit the suicide, the doctor should be free to tell him that he will need to find another doctor to carry out that request.

[Gaidin]

But if the patient wants to commit the suicide, the doctor should be free to tell him that he will need to find another doctor to carry out that request.

That's the catch, and also why any suggestions from doctors tend to be things they're willing to do themselves. This is one of the reasons why a second opinion is so big in serious cases. First, you want to know if its really that serious. Second, you want to know if theres any other solutions that the doctor DIDN'T tell you.

A footnote would be that every time assisted suicide has come up is because the patient has suggested it.

[HMMcKamikaze]

But if the patient wants to commit the suicide, the doctor should be free to tell him that he will need to find another doctor to carry out that request.

Yes, thats exactly what i believe, unless as aid above, the patient is in extreme pain or getting closer to death with a terminal disease, then i think that the patient should have the full right to an assisted suicide.

[Lee1026]

Yes, thats exactly what i believe, unless as aid above, the patient is in extreme pain or getting closer to death with a terminal disease, then i think that the patient should have the full right to an assisted suicide.

Even if he is in extreme pain, then he can still ask for a different doctor.....

[Garbarsardar]

As this is a political/ethics issue I will leave it in the mudpit for the time being...

[HMMcKamikaze]

no my point was that in such a situation the doctor would not have a choice on whether or not to do it, it would be the patient's choice. This would only be in extreme cases, but im not sure how they would exactly define extreme, but if they could define it then it would be good.

[Maron]

According to the l4th Amendment, the “government shall not deprive an individual of life, liberty or property without due process law.” The right to life can be interpreted as the individual’s right to live and die in dignity without interference by the government. It is a personal right or freedom.

umm....saying that the word life includes death is like saying that the word apples includes oranges. Death is actually the antonym found in a thesaurus for the word life. I didnt see anything in the constitution that says the government must let people kill themselves. So that whole statement was pointless unless you plan to defend your position that death and life are one and the same.

From http://thesaurus.reference.com/search?q=life:

Main Entry: life
Part of Speech: noun 1
Definition: animation
Synonyms: activity, being, breath, brio, dash, energy, enthusiasm, entity, esprit, essence, excitement, get-up-and-go*, go*, growth, heart, high spirits, impulse, lifeblood, liveliness, oomph*, sentience, soul, sparkle, spirit, verve, viability, vigor, vitality, vivacity, zest*, zing*, élan, élan vital
Antonyms: death, nonexistence
Source: Roget's New Millennium™ Thesaurus, First Edition (v 1.2.1)
Copyright © 2006 by Lexico Publishing Group, LLC. All rights reserved.
* = informal or slang


oh and to answer the question...no I dont think that it should be a right.

[greek302]

oh and to answer the question...no I dont think that it should be a right.

Why?

[Lee1026]

However, since there is no valid rational to ban it, it should legal, no?

[Maron]

However, since there is no valid rational to ban it, it should legal, no?

no it should not. my reasons are on moral grounds, but since most liberals conveniently lose their morals when it suits their position, ill go the legal route.

it was previously stated that doctor assisted suicide should be legal. this would make every doctor that participates, a criminal by law. You would have to place asterix all over our laws saying that all of the murder, homicide, manslaughter, assault, etc. laws count for everyone except for doctors that kill people. How could you keep a check on every doctor? You know good and well that some sicko doctor is gonna end up murdering like 50 people and getting away with it by claiming that they were patients.

if nothing else then it would make the practicing doctors guilty of involuntary manslaughter at least.

from dictionary.com:

involuntary manslaughter
: manslaughter resulting from the failure to perform a legal duty expressly required to safeguard human life, from the commission of an unlawful act not amounting to a felony, or from the commission of a lawful act involving a risk of injury or death that is done in an unlawful, reckless, or grossly negligent manner —see also reckless homicide at HOMICIDE

And that is being nice. even though the doctor will no doubt administer a lethal dose of some drug which just happens to be second degree murder.

this would also negate the hippocratic oath.

[I swear by Apollo the physician, by Æsculapius, Hygeia, and Panacea, and I take to witness all the gods, all the goddesses, to keep according to my ability and my judgement, the following Oath.

To consider dear to me as my parents him who taught me this art; to live in common with him and if necessary to share my goods with him; To look upon his children as my own brothers, to teach them this art if they so desire without fee or written promise; to impart to my sons and the sons of the master who taught me and the disciples who have enrolled themselves and have agreed to the rules of the profession, but to these alone the precepts and the instruction.

I will prescribe regimens for the good of my patients according to my ability and my judgment and never do harm to anyone.

To please no one will I prescribe a deadly drug nor give advice which may cause his death.

Nor will I give a woman a pessary to procure abortion.

But I will preserve the purity of my life and my art.

I will not cut for stone, even for patients in whom the disease is manifest; I will leave this operation to be performed by practitioners, specialists in this art.

In every house where I come I will enter only for the good of my patients, keeping myself far from all intentional ill-doing and all seduction and especially from the pleasures of love with women or with men, be they free or slaves.

All that may come to my knowledge in the exercise of my profession or in daily commerce with men, which ought not to be spread abroad, I will keep secret and will never reveal.

If I keep this oath faithfully, may I enjoy my life and practice my art, respected by all men and in all times; but if I swerve from it or violate it, may the reverse be my lot."