The Supreme Court and an assisted suicide law
Link to the following article:
http://159.54.226.83/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051005/ITK/510050301/1016
After reading this short article, which lays out a very concise explanation of a case argued before the Supreme Court, blog a bit about this issue of assisted suicide. Should it be legal for doctors to help terminally ill people, diagnosed to have fewer than six months to live, commit suicide?
http://159.54.226.83/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051005/ITK/510050301/1016
After reading this short article, which lays out a very concise explanation of a case argued before the Supreme Court, blog a bit about this issue of assisted suicide. Should it be legal for doctors to help terminally ill people, diagnosed to have fewer than six months to live, commit suicide?
posted by Crosby | 12:33 PM
26 Comments:
I agree whole-heartedly agree with ashley l. I don't think anyone should be able to take the life of another. And what if the doctor made a mistake in diagnosis? We all have a purpose here on Earth. We don't know how we effect other people, but a lot of times we effect them in a good way. Now, this is just my opinion, but taking a person's life away, even if they're ok with it, is just moraly wrong.
I agree with both Ashley and Jessica; it is not morally right to help someone end their life. Like Jessica said, there may be an incorrect diagnosis and to end that last bit of their life is not ok. Assisting a suicide is just as bad as if the patient had killed him or herself without any help. Suicide is not something done lightly, to say the least. It might even affect the patient's family more, knowing that the person took his own life, even if it was approved.
I agree with everyone on this subject. No person should be allowed to take his or her own life, even if they decide that they would like to take it. If the patient thinks that they have about six months to live, then of course they will want to take their own life...they want to just get it over with. But, just like Ashley L said, they may still have a lot of life to live. There have been VERY many miraculous recoveries, more than anyone can count. Why destroy someone's chance of being a living miracle? Also,a doctor cannot say that a patient is in his/her right mind when he/she is terminaly ill. I have had a surgery before, and I know that I couldn't think straight, even though it was nothing major. I still was scared and felt like I just needed relief from all of the doctor's appointments and the like. Now, of course, I never thought of suicide, but I didn't have cancer or some other horrible disease. And even though the patient seems to have no hope, there is always hope, no matter how dim it seems. So many people have been given the news, "I'm sorry, Mr./Mrs.So-and-so, but you only have six more months to be alive. Please accept my deepest condolences.....". But so many of those people are still alive today, going on three or four years since that news. What would have happened if they had given up, left their families, friends, and co-workers to grieve for someone who shouldn't even be gone? My point is that a doctor may have facts to support what MIGHT happen to a person, but that doctor cannot assist a person with killing him/herself. Doing so would be assisting in murder. Last time I checked, that was against the law.
I agree that people shouldn't be able to have a doctor take their own life. If you are told you are only going to live for six months, why would you want to die before that? Wouldn't you want to make the most out of every day you have left?
On the other hand,if a person is in a horrific accident, and they end up being in a vegetated state for the rest of their life, I can see why some would want to go ahead and die. I personally don't believe people have the right to decide whether or not they should continue to live, but I can see why some would contemplate assisted suicide.
I thought Patrick's comment was interesting--if someone is in a vegetative state with absolutely no way to recover the ability to decide whether or not they want to die, then it is the family's descision. I do wonder why the "NOT MARRIAGE" was included in that. I think a husband or wife still has some say in the descision to "pull the plug", if you will. But that's just my opinion.
I was talking to my parents, both medical doctors, about this topic, and my opinions changed somewhat. If someone is in terrible pain every minute of their remaining life, and they cannot operate or interact with anyone or enjoy anything through the pain, can't someone help them to end the pain? For example, my cousin's grandmother died from lung cancer. A few months before her death, she was in such terrible pain that she could hardly breathe, let alone speak. She could not communicate with her family or anyone else for that matter. There is a certain point in medicine that even the strongest painkillers known to man cannot stop someone's agony. And if we can't help someone suffering from that kind of pain, how can we turn down a request from that patient? To even reach that descision, the patient must request orally at two different times and the physician must give written consent. This ensures that the patient fully understands the terms they are asking and that the doctor is willing to participate. The case-to-case differentiation is enough that it is unwise to make a blanket desicion and outlaw this practice entirely.
I agree with everyone else on this subject. Doctors don't have any right to end the life of a person. Like Jessica and Michelle said, the doctors could have made a mistake and the person really has another year or two to live. They could also make a miraculous recovery from whatever they have.
I also agree with what Emily said about making the most out of every day you have to live. If they are going to die, then they should appreciate the last few months of life.
I think Ashley made a good point that there are probably people who are suffering more than you.
This "marriage" issue is interesting. If you think about the symbolism in a wedding, there is traditionally the "giving away" of the bride to the groom. Additionally, these days the person officiating at the wedding usually asks "Who gives this woman to this man?" and "Who gives this man to this woman?" and both sets of parents note their consent to the joining. Considering this and the fact that people do not get to choose their blood relatives but do get to choose their spouses (at least usually, in the U.S.), why would you prefer that a blood relative make the most important decisions for a person? Furthermore, what if a 40-year-old patient's parents are both dead? Should the siblings of that patient make decisions for the patient, or should the patient's spouse make the decisions?
If you ask most adults, they will tell you that they have thought about whether or not they would prefer to be kept alive if they were in vegetative states. Most would probably also tell you that they had discussed the issue and their decisions with their spouses. I strongly doubt that many have discussed their decisions with their parents, siblings, or young children (who are their blood relatives). I can tell you that if something happened to my father, I would not want my 89-year-old grandpa, my aunt, or my brother or myself, to make the decisions about what to do. That should be my mother's right and responsibility. After all, my father has chosen to spend almost half his life with her already.
I think that any relative of the person can make the decision. It shouldn't have to be a blood relative but just anybody that that person is related to. It should be a relative though because relitives will do what they think is the best for that person
Even though your father has chosen to spend half his life with your mom, he has grown up with your grandma and grandpa and his siblings (if he had any) and he has known them his whole life. Besides, your parents and siblings always want what is best for you.
In a perfect world, blood relatives do always want what is best for you. But consider this. If you decide that your spouse does not have your best interests at heart, what legal remedy fo you have? Divorce. If you decide that your blood relatives do not have your best interests at heart, what legal recourse do you have?
This may sound harsh (regarding the Schaivo case), but why shouldn't the husband have moved on? His wife collapsed in 1990. How many years would you expect someone to hang around, waiting for you, knowing that you would never recover? Schaivo's parents even encouraged the husband to move on and date other women.
There have been many moral and religious arguments put forward against assisted suicide. However, laws can't make people act in any one "moral" way, and in this country, laws cannot enforce religious viewpoints. So, are there any Constitutional arguments against assisted suicide?
I will argue the other side: that the U.S. Constitution allows assisted suicide. The 5th and 14th Amendments guarantee that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process (ie: the government must proceed constitutionally when attempting to take away life, liberty or property). I would argue that the Constitution, therefore, entitles me to direct my life, liberty and property. I can dispose of my property (sell it) using an agent (real estate agent). I can also dispose of my liberty (commit a crime) using an agent (weapon, computer, etc.). Thus, I should also be able to dispose of my life (suicide) using an agent (a lethal dose of a legal drug). Comments?
I agree Ashley, and why would a doctor want to assist in a suicide? That doctor will live everyday for the rest of his life knowing that he killed someone who maybe could have overcome that disease or whatever illness they had.
May I make the point again that the doctor has a choice in this matter? He or she will not be forced to help. The doctors know the choices they are making!
I agree with Crosby on the marriage issue. You can choose your spouse, but not your blood relatives, and the spouse has a legal say in the matter.
I agree with the spouse issue that the spouses should decide to keep that person alive or let them die. I was trying to play the devil's advocate earlier. Also, I still don't think doctors should have the right to purposely kill someone.
Thanks for playing the devil's advocate, Kendra. That is exactly what I hope all of you attempt to do.
On that note, isn't anyone going to take the challenge of presenting a legal argument against assisted suicide? If not, the Supreme Court of Crosby will be forced to rule without reading opposing arguments.
Well, in a legal dictionary it says that murder (as a noun) is the crime of unlawfully and unjustifiably killing another under circumstances defined by statute (as with premeditation[plotting in advance]) such a crime committed purposely, knowingly, and recklessly with extreme indifference to human life or during the course of a serious felony.
If a doctor kills a person, he is commiting it purposely, knowingly, and recklessly, just like it says in the definition I copied from this site: http://www.answers.com/topic/murder
A good point. Consider this: that definition of murder specifies that murder is the crime of "unlawfully" killing another. Assisted suicide laws make the death legal. So, doesn't that negate the problem?
But is it legal for a doctor to purposely kill someone?
Some cases of premeditated, intentional killing have lawful excuse and thus are not legally murder, or even crimes at all. This includes:
* Killing a person who poses an immediate threat to the lives of oneself or others (i.e., in self-defense)
* Killing a non-surrendered enemy combatant in time of war
* Executing a person in accordance with a legally imposed sentence of death
I copied this from Wikipedia. It doesn't say that doctors are allowed to kill people.
I agree that it is not a generally accepted idea that assisted suicide is a legal form of murder. The point of the case currently before the Supreme Court deals with an Oregon law, the "Death with Dignity Act," that was passed by Oregon voters in November 1994 and supported again by voters in 1997.
This law, passed by the people of Oregon, is legal, at least until (and if) the U.S. Supreme Court rules that it is illegal. Therefore, in Oregon, assisted suicide is completely legal.
The U.S. government's lawyers are arguing that the state of Oregon is breaking a national law by allowing doctors to give lethal doses of drugs to patients, even if the patients are of sound mind (as verified by other doctors) and make the requests without pressure from anyone else.
The state of Oregon's lawyers are arguing that the state law is just fine because states are allowed to make decisions about medical issues that arise in their states.
What is especially interesting here is that the more conservative justices are likely to rule against the legality of Oregon's law. In doing so, however, they will be saying that yet again, the states do not have rights that they seem to have right now - and conservatives generally argue against reductions in state power.
In my opinion, that is stupid. Why would people in Oregon want that to be passed as a law? I mean they have the right to I guess but that is a stupid law. To me, it just seems like people want to die without having to commit suicide.
It might seem stupid, but again, you have to examine the matter from all sides. To get the full picture, you really need to understand the situation, the views of the doctors, the views of the patients involved, the views of their family, the views of the legislature--you have to take everything into account. With such a controversial matter, who can really say whether it is right or wrong to pass the law?
Okay, I still think its stupid but Michelle you are right.
I know, it doesn't feel right but things can be so complicated now. Anything can happen. It seems that technological advances have just served to make our lives more complicated rather than easier.
Post a Comment
<< Home