Right to Die Laws - Research Paper Example

Right to Die Laws INTRODUCTION This paper is about Euthanasia and the right to die for people whom for medical and other reasons, need to be assisted in their death. In recent times, there has been a renewed interest in assisted suicide or Euthanasia with both opponents and proponents sticking to their stands where it concerns an individual’s right to die under legally approved circumstances. The debate over Euthanasia is often mixed up in the larger issues of whether any person has a right to end his or her life and whether physicians and medical personnel have a duty and obligation to prolong a terminally ill patient’s life with use of modern methods of treatment. As the Terri Shiavo case showed, religion and family issues are intertwined in the debate over Euthanasia. This paper considers the issue from a wide variety of perspectives that include examining the right to die laws and whether it is legal for the physicians to assist in Euthanasia. The other side of the debate, namely, whether it is moral for the physicians to prolong life of a patient who might be a “vegetable” for all practical purposes is considered as well. RIGHT TO DIE LAWS Much has been written about Oregon’s Death with Dignity act that makes assisted suicide legal. Now the advocates for the same have been proposing to introduce the act in other states as well and in particular, Washington. However, there is a strong case for helping terminally ill patients spend the remainder of their life with care provided by the medical fraternity and with support from the state and insurance companies. As Rheba De Tornany says in her column, spending time with loved ones even if they do not have much time to live is an emotionally satisfying experience. And care for these patients is made possible by hospice nursing and advanced technologies that are available commonly, ironically, due to the efforts of the assisted suicide activists. Watching a loved one in pain is difficult and heart wrenching. But, what is more enriching is seeing them end their life peacefully with dignity is something that would be closer to the heart. The moral questions raised by the right-to-die laws are a direct result of developments in modern technology. From the earliest times, the primary goal of doctors has been to cure the sick and comfort the dying. However, modern technology has now allowed them to prolong life beyond the body's natural ability to maintain itself. Machines can artificially breathe for a person; intravenous feeding can artificially supply sustenance. Indeed, technology can keep a patient's body completely alive even when its brain is dead. A major problem arises in situations such as these when the patient's desires are not known; it is then up to others to decide how long artificial life-sustaining procedures should be administered. Next of kin are nearly always the ones to whom this emotionally difficult decision falls, and the complexity of right-to-die laws reveals just how legally complicated the decision can be as well. (JRank.org, 2010) ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS When one debates Euthanasia, it goes without saying that the Ethical considerations for Euthanasia have to be considered first and foremost. The following excerpt from an article about the Ethical considerations for Euthanasia sets the tone for the discussion to follow: “One of the main reasons that the debate about euthanasia has been so hotly contested is because it challenges the value systems of people. The people who believe in individual rights and quality of life as the supreme value see their value hierarchy threatened in the status quo by the power of the state. If the status quo were to change to eliminate this threat, people who see life itself as the supreme value would find their value hierarchy threatened. One way of examining values and ethics to see if they are worthwhile is through the use of normative ethical theories. By examining a problem or particular policy through the lens of a normative ethical theory, we can determine if the system needs changing or if a particular policy option is an ethical one.” (LeBaron, 2010) As the above excerpt makes it clear, the notion that people can be assisted in their deaths challenges the very concept of ethics for many. Since, the right to die is something that shakes up one’s value system and beliefs because of the theory that as humans, we do not have the power to take our own life considering the fact that it goes against the grain of normative ethical theories as well as philosophical discourses on the nature of humans and our place in the world. This act of striking at the core of what it means to be human is central to the debate over the right to die and the ethical issues surrounding the same. The compelling ethical argument against Euthanasia is that physicians reports on whether a patient can be allowed to die fall outside of the purview of the medical norms and such a decision is fraught with errors of poor judgment and the like. The current debate on the issue is drawing deep divisions on both sides with religious fundamentalists on one hand and liberals on the other hand. Thus, the question of choosing either way has become contentious. However, what this paper recommends is that options other than ending terminally ill patient’s lives should be explored. And in this, the state has a prominent role to play. PHYSICIANS AND ASSISTED SUICIDE The other reason why assisted suicide or Euthanasia is a dangerous proposition is due to the fact that strict regulation is needed to ensure that the laws on assisted suicide are not misused. According to Joel Connelly, there are many documented cases of elderly patients who have been pressurized to die. This may be due to a desire for financial gain from the relatives or more commonly, to avoid paying huge costs for treatment. There are issues with both the former as well as the latter. In the case of patients and their families unable to bear the cost of treatment, there can be provisions by the state to support terminally ill patients. However, advocates of Euthanasia point to the fact that prolonging the life of a person who is in a vegetative state is not ethically correct and that there should be a way to medically assist in the termination of his or her life. The proponents of such positions take the view as was expressed in the Terri Shiavo case that someone who is brain dead cannot feel or think anything and for all practical purposes, is dead to the world. Hence, in this case physician assisted suicide is the best course of action. However, there are many who would balk at this notion and hence the issue has become loaded of late. However, the fact that in these cases, the doctors usually deny treatment that they consider futile makes the case for proponents of Euthanasia stronger. This aspect of doctors denying futile treatment is covered in the next section that considers the recent advances in medical technology that might mitigate the suffering of patients though there are other factors such as cost of such treatment that have to be taken into consideration. PROLONGING LIFE This section considers whether it is right for doctors to prolong the life of patients who are suffering from terminally ill diseases. The main argument in this section is about the recent advances in medical technology and how they can be used to let terminally ill patients lead a happy life. The question that one needs to ask is whether the doctors should provide futile treatment. The excerpt below provides some clues about this answer and raises other questions in turn. “The assisted suicide debate has become polarized. On one side we have those defending compassion and freedom against the dark forces of fanatical fundamentalism. On the other, we have the opponents, defending God and family against murder and liberal elitism. Lost in the fusillades are those who suffer prolonged problems and people with disabilities who fear -- reasonably I believe -- that a profit-preoccupied medical establishment combined with emotionally and financially stressed families would press them to accept death, regardless of the heralded safeguards laws would contain. What neither side seems to realize is that the battlefield has changed. We can have death with dignity without enabling our physicians to sign death warrants. A dying person need no longer suffer the torments of pain, anxiety and depression or exchange the sanctuary of home and loved ones for the rigors of a hospital.” (Tornyay, 2009) The key issue here is of whether doctors ought to prolong the lives of patients and whether the patients can afford such treatment given the complexities of the US healthcare system. The point needs to be made that even with the advances in technology, because of considerations of costs and other factors; this form of treatment may not be available to all. Hence, the issue of whether doctors should refuse request for futile treatment or whether they should refer patients for effective yet expensive treatment that eases the pain of the patients is interlinked with that of the healthcare system as it is currently structured. CONCLUSION This paper has considered the issue of Euthanasia or the right to die from several perspectives. The overriding theme in this paper has been to examine both sides of the debate and the reasoned approach that I have taken must be qualified with that of the emotional responses of the patients and their families to an essentially loaded issue like the right to die. Considering all factors, it is my contention that a blanket ban on Euthanasia or a free flowing right to die law do not serve the purpose. Instead what is needed are a set of approaches that take into account the complexities of the issue and lets the decision about right to die be contingent upon the factors that we have discussed. In conclusion, the decision as to whether a terminally ill or a brain dead patient should be allowed to live or die must be made on the basis of several factors that include the person’s medical condition as determined by the medical panel and the considerations of the patients families must be taken into account as well. It is apparent that cases like these must be treated on a case-by-case basis and not subject to a blanket ban or blanket approval scenarios. References Jr, Garn LeBaron. The Ethics of Euthanasia. 23 Feb 2010. 22 Apr 2010 http://www.quantonics.com/The_Ethics_of_Euthanasia_By_Garn_LeBaron.html\ Marker, Rita L. Oregon's Suicidal Approach to Health Care. 14 Sep 2008. 22 Apr 2010 http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/09/oregons_suicidal_approach_to_h.html Right to Die laws. 10 Jan 2010. 22 Apr 2010 http://law.jrank.org/pages/11856/Right-Die.html Tornyay, Rheba De. Proposal is reckless, unnecessary. 25 Aug 2008. 22 Apr 2010 http://www.seattlepi.com/opinion/376408_antidignity26.html Read More