Indeed the silent are not absent, just apathetic over the littany of personal tid bits and lack of controversy. I had this one on the back burner for a couple of days, and since you prompted I will answer.
Fish out of water!
As you are probably aware, the supreme court just announced its 6-3 vote to uphold the state of Oregon's physician assisted suicide law. This is of acute interest to myself and my colleagues because it has been suggested that other states may follow suit. I am sure you legal types can find a more authoritative source to post than MSNBC on the matter, the article does link to full and abridged versions of the majority opinion, however. Some firestarters:
1. The law in Oregon allows a Physician to write a prescription for a lethal oral dose of barbiturates for patients with a documented terminal illness for which life expectancy is less than six months. It is up to the patient to request, fill, and administer the prescription. Thus, theoretically, some degree of initiative and mental capacity is required to follow through. The nature of the law also prohibits chronically immobile patients and patients who cannot take medication by mouth from receiving the drugs. Self-administration is key.
2. About 30 people a year in Oregon have used the prescription to take their own lives since its enactment in 1997, representing 1 in every 1000 deaths in Oregon. Many more have requested the prescription though.
3. It has been suggested, although not proven, that the law has had dramatic effects on palliative care in Oregon. Namely that physicians, when faced with the spectre of a patient who could successfully take his/her own life, are more likely to take care to assess patient pain and overall comfort than otherwise. For many this represents the major victory of the legislation.
So, what do we think about PAS? What do we think about Justice Roberts in the dissenter's corner with Scalia and Thomas? Is taking ones own life inherently immoral? Why? Is the Department of Justice's argument that prescription of barbiturates for PAS is not "a legitimate medical purpose" valid? Is there a better argument for federal jurisdiction over this kind of legislation? Enjoy, but please, stay in the pool....and no diving.
5 comments:
All I have to offer at the moment: Cross reference to Garnett's post on the topic on Mirror of Justice.
Maybe more later, once I develop an independent opinion.
BTW, thanks for the post. I was fresh out of controversy. If that's your taste, feel free to serve it up.
I'm just curious... Does anyone know of precedent for this? Are there other cultures, presently or historically, that recognize the "right to die"? I suppose Japan's "honor suicide" might count. What about cultures that consider the "right to die" a human dignity issue to be considered in the treatment of disease? Does it square with the Hippocratic and/or other medical oaths?
First, this seems to be a bit of a split discussion. See Monica's post and comments on the same topic.
Second. Hmm. Yeah, this one's tough. I really can understand the court's reluctance to touch such a distinctly medical issue (really, do we want the federal courts to make a habit of making discretionary calls about how to practice medicine?), but on the other hand, Scalia does have a point. Call it an administrative call all you want, but I think how you answer the procedural question is going to be determined, or at least colored by, what you believe about assisted suicide.
Sorry to link so much, but I found this article about what many regard as the genesis (at least as far as the mainstream media goes) of physician-assisted suicide. Nasty.
Oh, yeah. And another link to Mirror of Justice. This is the original report on the case, including a link to the text of the decision.
Valid point, Monkey Lung. A technicality, but one courts will probably take note of. Still, if producing death is not a "legitimate medical purpose," why should it matter if the patient participates in it? It seems that if the doctor is not allowed to do it because it isn't a legitimate function of medicine, he shouldn't be allowed to prescribe otherwise illegal substances for the purpose. It's not like they would be making suicide illegal (what's the point?); they would be precluding a certain means--means that are forbidden for any end except healing.
Post a Comment