THE FUTURE of assisted suicide and the right to "die with dignity" for terminally ill patients in Oregon will come to a critical junction Nov. 20. After Attorney General John Ashcroft issued a directive to suspend prescription writing privileges for Oregon doctors who participate in assisted suicide, Oregon's attorney general filed suit and was granted a temporary restraining order until Nov. 20 on the directive. A new court hearing on the issue will be held on that date to determine the validity of the federal government's power to dictate rules on medical practices to the state. Oregon's legal strategy to save the law is based on federalism and although it hopefully will succeed, legal machinations cannot save the practice forever. Definitive protection of the right to physician-assisted suicide as a personal choice must be examined if the law is to survive.
The history of euthanasia is a long and complicated one that is rife with controversy. In the 1990s, media attention focused on Dr. Jack Kevorkian, the so called "Dr Death" who went on "60 Minutes" with a video of one of the suicides he aided and dared the law to catch him. It did, and he was sentenced to a lengthy prison sentence.
At the moment, Oregon is the only state that supports euthanasia with its Death with Dignity Act. Strict guidelines for the distribution of lethal doses of drugs require that two doctors agree that a patient who wishes to die has six months or less to live, has the mental faculties to make such a decision, and is making the decision voluntarily. In the short history of the law, 70 people have taken their lives on their own terms and there have been few problems. The law was passed in 1994 by a scant margin, and its success led to a wide margin when re-approved in 1997.
|
It is important to note that there are different types of euthanasia. Active euthanasia is when a doctor administers a lethal dose of drugs to kill a patient, while passive euthanasia is the withdrawal of treatment that will result in a patient's death. The third type of euthanasia is physician-assisted suicide and involves the patient asking and receiving the means to kill themselves from their doctor. Oregon accepts assisted suicide only because this method requires the patient, not the physician, to physically administer the lethal dose.
Opponents of euthanasia claim there is no distinction between the three types as any physician participation is a violation of the Hippocratic Oath - doctors' vow to take care of their patients to the best of their abilities. A gray area exists in the pledge in that the best care should take into account the patient's wishes, which can include suicide. The term euthanasia derives from the Latin term for "good death" and can be seen as more dignified than a prolonged, debilitating one.
Conservatives and religious groups assail euthanasia as an act against nature and God. These critics suggest that it is immoral to end lives prematurely, and people have no right to take their own lives. To block a person's choice to die and deny the validity of his beliefs because it is against God's will is an unjust imposition of popular values on other Americans. For example, courts protect a Jehovah's Witness' right to reject a blood transfusion because their religion dictates it. Though assisted suicide is not a religious belief, it certainly is a personal belief deserving of legal protection.
The wish to die may be unpopular, but the right to die cannot be discarded if people are to remain free to make decisions regarding their lives. There are states worse than death: the physical inability to maintain one's health, painful diseases or debilitating injuries. Critics should spend a day in a sick man's hospital bed and see how they like it. The judgment of one's life is a personal decision and must rest with those qualified to make informed decisions - the individual.
Though problems certainly could arise in the regulation of such a unique measure, evaluations of the efficacy of the Oregon law show that Ashcroft's motive is religious morality rather than simple justice. Many people fear that if the state allows doctors to participate in a patient's death, a chain reaction will occur that will lead to murder, coerced suicide and the elimination of undesirable elements of society. Yet the Oregon law has set a precedent of safe practice and the law has only gained support since its inception. No matter what Ashcroft claims, targeting Oregon has a definite religious and moral message.
The irrational fear of death and the unknown, never more present than in the months following the terrorist attacks, should not factor into euthanasia legislation. Oregon's experiment has been successful and has done nothing but give dying people the ability to die on their own terms. Proper regulation has prevented abuse, making the government's moral dictation all the more disturbing. Impressing one's moral values on others is against everything for which this country stands, and the Nov. 20 court hearing must take this into account. Otherwise, how different is America from other nations that dictate religious morality to their citizens?
(Brad Cohen's column appears Thursdays in The Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at bcohen@cavalierdaily.com.)
Read More
EDITORIAL: Carla Williams deserves her seat at the table
By Editorial Board | 13 hours agoLooking beyond basketball and football reveals that Virginia Athletics is, in many ways, thriving.
UPADHYAYA: The Great and not-so-Good sides of U.Va.’s 2030 housing plan
By Apal Upadhyaya | 2 days agoInstead of improving the dire state of existing infrastructure, however, the University has shifted attention away from it and chosen to expand.
EDITORIAL: Support low-barrier shelters in Charlottesville
By Editorial Board | 3 days agoInvesting in low-barrier shelters now will pay off in increased stability for the homeless, which will undoubtedly improve the safety of shelters and the community writ large.
