We recently saw the conclusion of what was probably the highest profile assisted suicide case in history. A young woman who recently moved to Oregon to legally acquire a prescription poison, deliberately ended her life before her terminal brain cancer destroyed her mind on body. She not only committed suicide, but she publicized the entire process leading up to it, in an effort to encourage other people to do the same, and for the rest of us to fully support and condone that process. But should we?
Clearly there is no denying that God gave us the ability to commit suicide. But he gave us the ability to do all sorts of things we shouldn't do. Not everything we have the ability to do, we have the right to do. Nearly everyone has the ability to commit suicide, but do we have the right? And more to the point, should we as a society be facilitating that process, or trying to prevent it?
Should we allow assistance to those committing suicide, or consider that to be akin to murder? And beyond that, should we give people the right to assistance, compelling medical professionals to provide that service, regardless of their beliefs on the issue? The Hippocratic oath, which has been a tradition honored in the medical profession for thousands of years, clearly conflicts with idea of doctors prescribing deadly poisons, or doing any other harm to their patients.
Should you need to have a terminal illness before suicide is legal? That is why the medical profession is involved in the first place. Otherwise it could be something that you get at the hardware store, like rat poison. Should you need a prescription to kill yourself? Obviously you don't really need one; there are lots of unsanctioned ways to kill yourself. But the medical profession offers a solution that is "peaceful" and "dignified," in the form of some specially formulated drug. Who develops these anyway, and how do they test them? Probably the same people who develop drugs for lethal injection, designed not to be "cruel or unusual" punishment. Which leads to another important question: "How do we reconcile the two views that a lethal overdose is the ultimate punishment for a convicted murderer and, at the same time, the ultimate blessing for an innocent terminally ill or disabled person?"
The opposing view, is that people who seem fated to die a long painful death based on medical prognosis, should be given the merciful option to end things quickly. And if you believe in the value of freedom, then it seems to logically follow that the opportunity should be made available to them, to allow them to make their own decision and deal with the consequences. I would concede that if you remove the religious belief elements from the equation, from an individual perspective, one could make equally strong cases either way.
But I have been learning recently how over focused Western culture is becoming on individuals and their rights as opposed to the good of the society at large. If we look at the issue from a social perspective, we see a totally different picture. Should any nurse or doctor be forced to provide a "treatment" that they personally believe to be unethical. Even if they weren't opposed to the concept, what would their participation due to them at a psychological level. What would happen to the Hippocratic oath?
Should insurance companies cover that "treatment?" Should they be able to promote that option over a painful $100K operation with limited potential for success? Will making that option available eventually create a social pressure for the terminally ill and disabled to remove the burden of their care from their families? Does this place within society the value that our personal convenience is more important than the lives of other people? (As with abortion) How far of a step is it from assisted suicide, to removing the decision from the patient and to the doctors or insurance company? Europe has legalized various forms of euthanasia, which are unquestionably wrong. So if we look at the larger picture, it is easy to see that an issue that could be argued either way from a personal rights point of view presents a significant potential cost and risk to society at large. What kind of world do you want to live in?
No comments:
Post a Comment