Abstract This paper discusses the only successful legalization of physician-assisted suicide in the U.S.A., the Oregon law called the Death with DignityAct, passed in 1994 by a voter referendum and hung up in court for three years before another voter referendum to repeal the law was defeated in November 1997, and it became legal. The author explains that personal experiences with dying family members led her to believe that terminally-ill patients should have the right to die as they wish, and physicians should have an important role in that decision. The paper relates that the public's support for assisted suicide or physician-assisted suicide has increased over the past 50 years; today 72% of the population supports this issue.
Table of Contents
Introduction
Overview of the Law
Supporting Arguments
Conclusion
From the Paper "The law also requires the prescribing physician to report all requests for medication to the Oregon Department of Human Services. In addition, in 1999, the Oregon Legislature added a requirement that pharmacists must be informed of the prescribed medication's ultimate use. Physicians and patients that follow the above requirements are protected from criminal prosecution under the law. In addition, choosing physician-assisted suicide will not affect the status of a patient's health or life insurance policies. There is no obligation for physicians and health care systems to participate in the law."
Tags: terminal, pharmacist, family, support, public
Abstract This paper details recent legislation on assisted suicide known as the Oregon Death with DignityAct. David Gil's Policy Analysis Framework is used to analyze the new law. According to Gil's analysis, the "objective" of Oregon's Death with DignityAct is to settle the dispute as to what the desires of an incapacitated person really are. The author concludes that as a result of the enactment of this law, the number of physician-assisted suicides will continue to grow, and disability supporters will protest and try to bring awareness to the general public.
From the Paper "The danger of defining "terminal" with time limits or definitions of illness is that these limits may be defined differently by different doctors. In the Netherlands "terminal" is simply "concrete expectancy of death" and time limits and definitions of "terminal illness" have been fastidiously avoided, to protect both the ill and their physicians when a terminal illness or mental state cannot be judged within these limits. Patients may suffer long past the six months that the doctor assumes is remaining for the patient. (Marker, 2006) In Oregon, the legal interpretation of "terminal disease" is "an incurable and irreversible disease that has been medically confirmed and will, within reasonable medical judgment, produce death within six months." [1995 c.3 s.1.01; 1999 c.423 s.1] (Definitions, 12)"
Abstract This paper discusses Oregon's "right to die" legislation - its Death with DignityAct. The paper discusses the strain on health care in the United States and then argues that allowing a patient to die of his/her own volition is a better use of health care facilities than taking heroic measures to prolong life, regardless how painful, demeaning or without purpose.
From the Paper "Lost in the debate about Oregon's "right to die" legislation is that the State of Oregon also embarked on a thorough analysis of healthcare rationing. The state disallowed a number of categories of medical treatment, and cut back on a number of other such methods, in order to free up resources to focus on the sicker patients. The overall goal was to support procedures and the use of resources in such a way that healthcare was enhanced. The right-to-die legislation was part and parcel of this overall effort. Those backing the legislation in the State understood that heroic expenditures at the end of life were not only futile, but they diverted scarce resources from other areas where the patients could be better-helped."
Abstract This paper describes the contents of Oregon's Death with Dignity law, the pros and cons of the statutes, and the potential impact of the law on the American health system. The paper includes the chronology of the law and efforts to repeal it.
From the Paper "Oregon's Death with Dignity Act passed into law via a voter referendum in legalized physician-assisted suicide in cases in which an individual diagnosed as terminally ill seeks assistance in terminating his or her ..."
Tags: physician assisted suicide, Oregon's Death with Dignity law
Abstract This paper relates that some of the issues regarding physician-assisted suicide are the evolution of rights, ethics and "the slippery slope" argument. The author points out that the issue of physician-assisted suicide has rapidly moved from being a secret, marginal matter to a real topic of discussion for most people in the United States. The paper contends that the issue of physician-assisted suicide is related to the availability of end-of-life palliative care.
Table of Contents:
Literature Review
Dr. Jack Kevorkian
The Federal Government and States Treat Physician-Assisted Suicide in the Courts
Doctors Speak Their Mind on Physician-Assisted Suicide
Scope of the Problem
A Question of Healthcare
Do The Terminally Ill Really Want Physician-Assisted Suicide?
Breakdown of Policy
Legislative Counsel Committee of the Oregon Legislative Assembly
How the Act Was Brought Into Being
Subsequent Progression to Present Day
From the Paper "In 1997, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously upheld decisions in New York and Washington State that affected assisted suicide and made it illegal. They overturned rulings in the 2nd and 9th Circuit Courts of Appeal striking down state statutes banning physician-assisted suicide. Those statutes, which prohibited doctors from prescribing lethal medication to competent, terminally ill adults, were found to violate the 14th Amendment. In striking the appellate decisions, the U.S. Supreme Court basically declared that no constitutional "right to die" existed, but individual states might enact legislation permitting or prohibiting physician-assisted suicide."
Abstract A written analysis of the case of "Gonzales vs. Oregon", which is currently being debated at the Supreme Court level. This case stems from the 1994 passage of the Death with DignityAct, which allows terminally ill and mentally competent individuals to obtain drugs that could be utilized in the state of Oregon. The current debate questions administrative law and whether the former Attorney General John Ashcroft's interpretation of the Federal Control Substance Act to outlaw these drugs is valid and if the Justice Department is overstepping its boundaries.
From the Paper "Oregon voters approved the legalization of physician assisted suicide (PAS) in November, 1994. After being legally challenged the Oregon PAS law became effective in the latter part of 1987. Since 1998 and through 2004 there have been a total of 208 PAS deaths in the State of Oregon. There are existing concerns with the legalization of physician-assisted suicide and there has been a great debate about the legality and morality of this practice. All levels of American society look harshly upon the thought of the use of drugs or other means to hasten the death of someone even though they may be in excruciating terminal pain however, healthcare modernization has changed the very "character of death and dying." (Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life, 2005) The case of Gonzales v. Oregon has arisen out of the debate which is one that is morally charged in nature as well as being the focus of lawsuits in relation to end-of-life decisions. However, this case has been subject to technical legalities and statutory interpretation."
Abstract The Oregon Death with DignityAct is a voter-approved initiative to allow for physician-assisted suicide under certain clearly defined circumstances and following specific procedures. This paper looks at the history of the law and the legal cases leading up to the passing of the law. Thereafter, the paper looks at the pros and cons of the law, reactions to the law by different interest groups and the law in reality.
From the Paper "The first challenge to the law caused a federal judge to rule that Oregon's assistedsuicide law was unconstitutional because it unfairly discriminates against the dying. The court stated, "There is little assurance that only competent terminally ill persons will voluntarily die. Some 'good results' cannot outweigh other lives lost due to unconstitutional errors and abuses" ("Oregon AssistedSuicide Law Revoked" 18). Then, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected this lawsuit and ordered a lower court judge to throw out the suit against the 1994 law, stating that those bringing the suit could not show that they faced an imminent threat of harm and so had standing to bring the suit. This is the decision the Supreme Court then refused to hear. However, the U.S. Congress then considered a way around the law through the Assisted Suicide Funding Restriction Act of 1997, Senate bill 304, which included a provision that would ban the use of federal funds "to cause, or to assist in causing, the suicide, euthanasia or mercy killing of any individual" (Kalmeyer 3835)."
Abstract The writer notes that today, with advanced technology and medical care, most terminal cases in hospitals, and greater involvement of legislation with privacy issues, dying has become complicated. In this article, the writer discusses that Oregon with its Death and DignityAct (DWDA), permits terminally-ill state residents to end their lives through the voluntary self-administration of lethal medications, expressly prescribed by a physician for that purpose. The writer maintains that this issue presents a valuable opportunity for individuals to decide while they can how to react to end-of-life issues before they become too prominent. The writer concludes that it is hoped that people can be objective and look at both sides of this issue for themselves and others to determine what is best for most people in the long term.
From the Paper "Implementation of the Oregon "Death with Dignity Act" was delayed by a legal injunction. However, after proceedings, which included a petition denied by the United States Supreme Court, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals lifted the injunction in October of 1997. In retaliation, at the upcoming November elections, the voters were asked to repeal the act through a general ballot. This time, when they rejected the repeal of the law by a wide margin of 60 to 40 percent, Oregon became the only state allowing legal physician-assisted suicide."
"The Death with Dignity Act permits terminally ill Oregon residents to obtain and use prescriptions from their doctors for self-administered, lethal medications. Under the Act, ending one's life in accordance with the law does not constitute suicide."
Abstract In this paper, the writer makes use of the views of a doctor and of Socrates to demonstrate different views on death and dying. The writer examines the concept of a "good death" and death with dignity. The writer discusses how death with dignity currently refers more to medical science easing the pain of death, than to the Socratic idea.
From the Paper "A great deal has been written in recent years about the concept of a good death or death with dignity. Sherwin B. Nuland stated that an entire mythology has grown up around the process of dying. Like most mythologies, it is based on the inborn psychological need that all humankind shares. The mythologies of death are meant to combat fear on the one hand and its opposite wishes on the other. It will be argued in this report that death with dignity is now understood ... "
Abstract The author of this paper reviews the various definitions,approaches, legislation issues and the position of the American Medical Association and the ?Death with DignityAct" about the need to establish the right to physician-assisted suicide. Arguments against physician-assisted suicide are logically refuted.
From the Paper "When we are young, most of us do not think about making a conscious decision to die. We look forward to years of long and healthy life, and if death ever seems appealing, it is as an antidote to depression. It does not often, if ever, occur to us that there will be a time when we look forward to the "good death" promised by euthanasia."
Abstract This paper takes a look at the history of the debate for and against the death penalty. Included is a discussion on whether or not the death penalty is it too harsh.
From the Paper "Should there be a death penalty? Is the death penalty to harsh of a punishment? Some may disagree; some may say that the death penalty is not harsh enough. Most don?t even take the time to think about it. As of right now thirty-eight states have the death penalty. Almost seven hundred fifty people have been executed since the reinstitution of the death penalty. The death penalty can range in age; you could be as young as eighteen years old or as old as ninety to be sentenced with it. There are many different ways of execution. Some are gas chambers, hangings, electrocutions, and the most popular one being lethal injection."
Abstract This paper explains that physician assisted suicide is legal in Oregon, which is currently the only state that allows assisted suicide through their "Death with Dignity" Act that allows terminally ill patients to die with dignity, choosing not to suffer needless pain and anguish in situations where there is no hope they will recover. The author points out that euthanasia occurs when the physician themselves administers a lethal dose of a drug to cause death; however, physician assisted suicide occurs when the physician aids the patient in preparing a lethal dose and the patient administers it to themselves. The paper stresses that the most compelling argument for physician assisted suicide comes from terminally ill patients themselves, who are suffering and have no hope of ending the suffering until they die.
From the Paper "However, the only bill to gain approval for physician assisted suicide is the bill in Oregon. Another expert notes, "Since 1992, bills have been introduced to legalize assisted suicide or euthanasia in [16] various state legislatures, including Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, [...] and Washington. All have failed -- so far." So, while many Americans believe they should have the right to die with dignity, fewer will vote for measures in their own states. The issue is especially heated in many religious communities, and some religions, such as Catholicism, have strict bans on suicide of any kind, and so they frown on any kind of right to die or assisted suicide measure in any form."
Abstract This paper explains that assisted suicide is a complex moral and legal issue concerning procedures that expedite the deaths of patients by physicians. The paper cites the Oregon Death with DignityAct, which is at the center of the debate among the advocates and enemies of assisted suicide. The paper also points out that, currently, strict restrictions exist that prevent any person from obtaining a prescription for the purpose of killing him or herself. The paper concludes that if a physician helps someone to die rather than to live, he is going against the very goals of medical science to sustain health and life.
From the Paper "However, by focusing completely on the physical aspects of the disease, the mental aspect has been overlooked. Anyone driven to suicide is neither mentally stable nor able to rationally assess his or her situation. More than likely, they are suffering from clinical depression due to their condition and need psychiatric help to bring them out of their depressed state back to a functional one. This condition, resulting from both a lack of moral support from fiends and family during this tough period as well as a inattentive physician, causes patients to often lose hope themselves when they assume that their doctor sees them as a lost cause."
A discussion on two articles regarding the Supreme Court: "What Have They Done For us Lately?", by Linda Villarosa and "Assisted Suicide Gets a Boost", by Linda Greenhouse.
Abstract This paper discusses the article "What Have They Done For us Lately?", written by Linda Villarosa, which addresses the issues of affirmative action, discrimination and the role of the Supreme Court in the United States in promoting equality. The paper then goes on to discuss another article entitled "Assisted Suicide Gets a Boost", written by Linda Greenhouse, which reports on the Supreme Court decision to remove John Ashcroft's block against the Oregon Death with DignityAct. The paper presents the writer's opinion on the validity of the arguments presented in the articles.
Table of Contents:
Summary
Analysis
Summary
Analysis
From the Paper "I both agree and disagree with the author. I agree in terms of affirmative action being a very important tool in the evolution of equality in the United States. Without it, the workplace today would still be dominated by a single sector of society. Because of affirmative action, as the author states, the workplace now benefits from the diversity of talent within the country. This provides an increase in quality and tolerance throughout the country. Obviously, the court cases she mentions are hard to disagree with. The decisions made by the court in the first two cited cases are discriminatory and unfair. Furthermore, it makes little sense that the law, including affirmative action as one of its aspects, does not provide protection to the very people it seeks to uplift."
Abstract This paper argues that assisted suicide should be a legal option for terminally ill patients in all states, not just Oregon and Washington where there is a "Death with DignityAct". The paper asserts that the patient should be the one to determine when too much is too much and enough is enough.
From the Paper "History has also shown that assisted suicide is a valid medical option. The ancient Romans and Greeks, as early as the fifth century B.C., were known to value voluntary death as opposed to prolonged suffering, and doctors would often give poison to help the patients (Dowbiggin 2). With the spread of Christianity, the number of assisted suicides was greatly decreased. In the early 1900's, in America, mercy-killings were mostly done in secret, but by the 1930's the debate had become a public issue (32). By the 1980's and 90's, the debate had flared up again, in part to the discovery of AIDS and more incurable diseases (xviii). The advancements in technology and medicine are now able to keep terminally ill patients alive much longer than in past decades. The question now is where the line is drawn in what say patients have in their own care."
