Oregon’s Law Is a Model for Other States
For more than a decade, Oregon has been the only state to provide clear procedures by which doctors can help end their dying patients' pain and suffering while protecting themselves from criminal prosecution.
Oregon doctors are permitted to prescribe a lethal dose of drugs to a mentally competent, terminally ill patient who makes written and oral requests, consults two physicians, and endures a mandatory waiting period. The patient's free choice is paramount throughout this process. Neither relatives nor doctors can apply on the patient's behalf, and the patient himself administers the lethal dose.
Elsewhere in America, however, the political influence of religious conservatism has thwarted passage of similar legislation. This has left terminal patients with nothing but a macabre menu of frightening, painful, and often violent end-of-life techniques universally regarded as too inhumane for use on sick dogs or mass murderers.
Other states should emulate Oregon’s enlightened legislation. It’s encouraging that voters in the State of Washington recently approved a ballot initiative for an Oregon-type law, and a Montana judge has ruled that the state’s constitution protects doctor-assisted suicide. Although further reform would be needed to address all legal the issues raised by an adult’s choice to commit suicide, the Oregon approach is a vital first step toward expunging religion and upholding rational individualism in this important area of American law.
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
OV Social
In Oregon, legislation was introduced in 1997 to permit physician-assisted suicide. Later in 1997, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that there is no constitutional right to physician-assisted suicide; however, the Court did not preclude individual states from legislating in favor of physician-assisted suicide. The Oregon legislation has, in consequence, remained operative and has been successfully utilized by a number of people. Under the Death With Dignity law, a person who sought physician-assisted suicide would have to meet certain criteria:
• The person must be terminally ill.
• The person must have six months or less to live.
• The person must make two oral requests for assistance in dying.
• The person must make one written request for assistance in dying.
• The person must convince two physicians that he or she is sincere and not acting on a whim, and that the decision is voluntary.
• The person must not have been influenced by depression.
• The person must be informed of "the feasible alternatives," including, but not limited to, comfort care, hospice care, and pain control.
• The person must wait for 15 days.
Oregon has taken the first step toward a universal law allowing physician-assisted suicide. While the rest of America has yet to follow suit, there are some groups of people who also strongly advocate the use of euthanasia. Their criteria for the procedure is as follows:
Advocates of voluntary euthanasia contend that if a person
(a) is suffering from a terminal illness;
(b) is unlikely to benefit from the discovery of a cure for that illness during what remains of her life expectancy;
(c) is, as a direct result of the illness, either suffering intolerable pain, or only has available a life that is unacceptably burdensome (because the illness has to be treated in ways that lead to her being unacceptably dependent on others or on technological means of life support);
(d) has an enduring, voluntary and competent wish to die (or has, prior to losing the competence to do so, expressed a wish to die in the event that conditions (a)-(c) are satisfied); and
(e) is unable without assistance to commit suicide,
then there should be legal and medical provision to enable her to be allowed to die or assisted to die.
Whether to live or die should strictly be the patient’s choice. While it should be taken into account the mental stability of the patient, the choice of life or death should ultimately come down to the decision of the patient, not a Supreme Court ruling. The debate of euthanasia stands only on moral and ethical grounds. It is a personal choice, and because of this, there cannot be laws forbidding it. If legalized, it can be used by those that qualify and want to use it, and those that do not want to use it do not have to. It is left to choice. In other words, if legalized, it will only benefit those that want to use it, and those that do not want to will not be affected. Since a law allowing euthanasia will only directly affect those that chose to use it, and because your body is your own, and your choice to live or die is your own, euthanasia should be a viable option for those that qualify.
Young, Robert, "Voluntary Euthanasia", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2008 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = .
http://law.jrank.org/pages/6602/Euthanasia-Oregon-s-Euthanasia-Law.html
These seem like reasonable requirements to me. Since it is, as you said, a personal choice, I see no reason why people who fit into these categories should not be able to request their own death. The boundaries set by Oregon are very strict and, as long as they are adhered to strictly, provide no possible wiggle room for mistakes or misjudgments.
Physician-assisted suicide is also legal under certain circumstances in the Netherlands, since April 1, 2002. The rules are as restrictive as in Oregon; in fact, two thirds of the requests to physicians for euthanasia are refused. The following is an excerpt from a brochure detailing the Netherlands’ new rules concerning euthanasia:
“The new Act on euthanasia does not change the legal status of termination of life on request or assisted suicide. They are still offenses under the Criminal Code. Doctors are exempt from prosecution, however, if they comply with the statutory criteria for due care and notify the municipal pathologist of their actions. The pathologist then notifies one of the five regional review committees.
“The due care criteria are as follows. Doctors must:
a. be satisfied that the patient’s request is voluntary and well-considered.
Note: This means that the request must not be made owing to pressure from or influence by other people or as the result of a mental disorder. The patient must fully understand the nature of his condition, his prospects and the types of treatment available. He must also have repeatedly expressed the wish to die;
b. be satisfied that the patient’s suffering is unbearable, and that there is no prospect of improvement;
c. inform the patient about his situation and further prognosis;
d. discuss the situation with the patient and come to the conclusion that there is no reasonable alternative;
e. consult at least one other physician with no connection to the case, who must then see the patient and state in writing that the attending physician has satisfied the due care criteria listed in a. to d. above; and
f. exercise due medical care and attention in terminating the patient’s life or assisting in his suicide.
Note: The doctor must perform euthanasia himself. He may not have someone else do it. In cases of assisted suicide, the doctor must remain with or near the patient until death occurs.”
In the Netherlands, as well as in Oregon, euthanasia is tolerated under certain conditions. Opponents need to understand that physicians will not go around administrating lethal injections to anyone who wants it. There are strict regulations that a patient must meet in order to be considered. Other states should seriously consider adopting this legislature in the best interest of their citizens who are suffering through the culmination of a fatal disease.
Euthanasia, the Netherlands` new rules." The ministry of Health, Welfare and
Sport. 8 Apr. 2002. 1 Mar. 2009
euthanasia_the_netherlands_new_rules.asp>.