Assisted Suicide: An Intelligent Dissenting View

This is from MuD & PHuD. The original discussion starts here. The original topic is related to new Euthanasia laws in Netherlands.

The much more difficult, and in my opinion correct, answer is that I do not have either sufficient cognitive capabilities nor the moral authority to decide that another's live is not worth living.

That is not to say that withholding care equals euthanasia nor that it is always wrong. Why? As a physician, I have a duty to my patients, first and foremost. Let me say that again, my duty is first and foremost to the patient. Any responsibilities I might have to his or her family members, the community, or to anyone else except that patient are secondary. I also took an oath that requires I first do no harm. Every action, and inaction, a doctor takes has the potential to help or harm.

The best result is always to help, whether through action or inaction. The worst is to cause harm by taking action. Therefore, when there is a reasonable expectation that action will harm, inaction is a viable and often correct choice. It is for that reason that 'comfort measures only' for a newborn with no hope of survival is a viable option. Beyond the withholding of care, while a more difficult decision, the removal of active life-saving measures is also sometimes the correct choice.

The thing that I will never accept is any action on the part of a physician, or any healthcare professional, that is undertaken with the sole purpose of terminating life. Period.

He also points to a paper by Donald Sensing on Physician Assisted Suicide.

Now go and read a logical and intelligible argument against PAS.

Note that Sensing is Methodist Pastor. I don't completely agree with his stand, but he calls for assisting the dying with proper pain control and clerical counciling. Both good things. But it doesn't provide answers for those that present pain control can't releive and those that are non-religious. Note how Sensing shows compassion for the dying.

He also starts by pointing out several flaws in the Oregon law.

No request by the patient for lethal medication needs to be made in person. Only one written request is required. It does not have to be witnessed by the doctor who prescribes the medication. A patient could make a write a request for lethal medication and have itwitnessed by a friend or relative or even forge a witness signature. The patient could then mail it to a doctor and have a fatal prescription mailed back.

The doctor is not required to notify any patient’s next-of-kin either before the death or afterward.

There is no requirement for doctors to report assisted suicide cases to any kind of regulatory board or agency. The limited information that the Act authorizes the state to collect by sampling records is specifically excluded as a public record and cannot be made available for inspection by the public. What all this means is that the dead patient’s family has no legal right to find out anything whatsoever about the death of their loved one.

The Act says that only Oregon residents would be eligible for assisted death. However, that Act requires absolutely no proof of residency of any kind whatsoever. No one is required to verify the patient’s place of residence.

I'm going to take these as factual, though the Oregon state website has conflicting data on some of the points.

Well, be responsible and at least read what he has to say.