Spring Break
Death With Dignity
Issue date: 1/15/08 Section: Forum
Currently Oregon is the only state that allows doctors to prescribe a lethal dose of medication to terminally ill patients. This is the Death With Dignity Act, which was enacted in Oregon on Oct. 27, 1997. Washington is trying to be the next state to enact a similar bill and is using Oregon's Death With Dignity act as a model, according to an article in The Oregonian. Is this something more states will try to adopt?
Since the act was enacted 11 years ago, 292 terminally ill patients of Oregon have ended their lives. Oregonstate.gov says doctors are only allowed to prescribe the lethal dose, and it must be administered by the patient. But the list of regulations does not stop there. The patient's life expectancy must be six months or less, the patient must be deemed of sound mind, and request must come once in writing and twice orally - each at least 15 days apart.
Washington previously tried, in 1991, to allow doctors to prescribe the drugs. If the patient was not able to administer it himself, a doctor would have been allowed to help. Oregon's act has always forbidden this.
There are several debates around the subject. Is it ethical? Is it against the Hippocratic Oath, which says "First, do no harm?"
Is this doing harm to a patient? If it is a patient's choice to free him or herself from pain, how is the doctor doing harm? Oregon law states the doctor may not administer the lethal dose. Is prescribing any medicine against the Hippocratic Oath?
It is not uncommon to hear about someone not terminally ill taking his or her own life with medicines a doctor had prescribed. It is clear that Death With Dignity is clearly very different from suicide.
It is not a matter of who is right and who is wrong. It comes down to a person's beliefs. If someone who is terminally ill and in constant pain feels taking his life is the right thing to do, who is to say otherwise? This is not to say taking your own life is okay, but it must come down to the options at hand, and terminally ill patients have this option in Oregon.
If doctors have the duty "to practice and prescribe to the best of [their] ability for the good of [the] patient and try to avoid harming them," is keeping a patient in constant pain really "for the good" of the patient? Part Four of the oath states, "To avoid violating the morals of my community."
Because Oregon has accepted this law, does it mean doctors are not violating the morals of the community?
The subject of Death With Dignity is a very slippery one. The Oregonian reported in 2006 that 46 percent of Americans support the right, and 45 percent oppose it. Clearly America is divided.
Editorials serve as a means for Barometer editors to offer commentary and opinions on issues both global and local, grand in scale or diminutive. The views expressed here are a reflection of the editorial board's majority.
Since the act was enacted 11 years ago, 292 terminally ill patients of Oregon have ended their lives. Oregonstate.gov says doctors are only allowed to prescribe the lethal dose, and it must be administered by the patient. But the list of regulations does not stop there. The patient's life expectancy must be six months or less, the patient must be deemed of sound mind, and request must come once in writing and twice orally - each at least 15 days apart.
Washington previously tried, in 1991, to allow doctors to prescribe the drugs. If the patient was not able to administer it himself, a doctor would have been allowed to help. Oregon's act has always forbidden this.
There are several debates around the subject. Is it ethical? Is it against the Hippocratic Oath, which says "First, do no harm?"
Is this doing harm to a patient? If it is a patient's choice to free him or herself from pain, how is the doctor doing harm? Oregon law states the doctor may not administer the lethal dose. Is prescribing any medicine against the Hippocratic Oath?
It is not uncommon to hear about someone not terminally ill taking his or her own life with medicines a doctor had prescribed. It is clear that Death With Dignity is clearly very different from suicide.
It is not a matter of who is right and who is wrong. It comes down to a person's beliefs. If someone who is terminally ill and in constant pain feels taking his life is the right thing to do, who is to say otherwise? This is not to say taking your own life is okay, but it must come down to the options at hand, and terminally ill patients have this option in Oregon.
If doctors have the duty "to practice and prescribe to the best of [their] ability for the good of [the] patient and try to avoid harming them," is keeping a patient in constant pain really "for the good" of the patient? Part Four of the oath states, "To avoid violating the morals of my community."
Because Oregon has accepted this law, does it mean doctors are not violating the morals of the community?
The subject of Death With Dignity is a very slippery one. The Oregonian reported in 2006 that 46 percent of Americans support the right, and 45 percent oppose it. Clearly America is divided.
Editorials serve as a means for Barometer editors to offer commentary and opinions on issues both global and local, grand in scale or diminutive. The views expressed here are a reflection of the editorial board's majority.
Note: writers will not reply to comments.
Comments by registered users are approved by default.