Assisted Suicide in Oregon: Consequences of Death with Dignity
What has happened, writes Courtney S. Campbell, a religion and philosophy professor at Oregon State University, is that doctors have almost certainly changed the way they practice medicine. One of the law’s major selling points was that it would lead to the alleviation of unbearable pain among the dying. The public response to the issue caused doctors, hospitals, and hospices to pay more attention to pain.
Laws and licensure requirements were altered so that doctors no longer faced investigation if they boosted dosages of medication to potentially dangerous levels for terminally ill people. Today, the issue of pain has become secondary. More than 80 percent of the patients requesting lethal drugs cite a “loss of autonomy” as justification. Pain is sixth on the list.
Source: Wilson Quarterly
Campbell, by the way, explicitly says that the law is a "moral mistake" despite the fact that it seems to have improved the lives — and deaths — of so many. It's hard to see how a law that provides so many benefits can be so immoral, unless of course one's perspective is so shackled by religion that it's impossible to see past the fact that what counts most is the ability to people to make decisions about what happens to their lives — even if you disagree with their decision.
I don't think that anyone on any side of the debate would deny that it's better to give people more choices rather than less, so if it's possible to make people comfortable enough that they don't want to end their lives early that's a good thing. It certainly seems as though Oregon's "death with dignity" law has helped achieve that and while some might dislike the method, the fact is that it has given people more choices all around. When people are denied the ability to make decisions about their own lives, that's when the law is a "moral mistake."
It’s cruel to prolong life when there’s no quality of life, and no hope for any.
When my mum was dying I saw first hand how true that is, not just for the patient, but also for the family. Fortunately she didn’t have to suffer for long.
My Nana, who’s 80, says that if she ever can’t function on her own she’s going to commit suicide. As painful as that is to hear, I would probably do that myself.
This is a truly enlightened position the state of Oregon has taken and these results show that to be the case-in spades! Thanks for that Austin!
I remember when a coworker put his dog to sleep, and all these christian coworkers of ours just lavished him with condolences, and they were all the same…”That was the right thing to do, now he isn’t suffering anymore…”
It seems dogs deserve humane treatment, but humans do not.
“It seems dogs deserve humane treatment, but humans do not.”
I wouldn’t use the pet experience as an argument in favor of legalizing euthanasia with humans.
Some people put their pets to sleep out of compassion for the animal. More often animals are euthanized because people can’t take care of them (too many homeless animals running around), or they’re becoming incontinent.
This is relevant because one of the major objections to PAS is that people will feel pressured to avail themselves of it when they’re a “burden” to their friends and family. We simply don’t know how many people in Oregon feel that pressure every year or how often people feeling that pressure do commit suicide as a result. All we know is how often doctors who write the prescriptions think “being a burden” is a factor. And by my lights, when doctors think “being a burden” is a factor even 20% of the time, that’s a VERY big deal. And 39% is a sign of a very serious problem.
This issue isn’t just about the people in unbearable pain who want to end their lives. It’s also about people who don’t want to end their lives but will feel pressure to do so. So, if you make the analogy to pets, you’ve got to consider both Fido-in-pain and Fluffy-the-inconvenience.
‘More than 80 percent of the patients requesting lethal drugs cite a “loss of autonomy” as justification.’
Not true. More than 80 percent of DOCTORS think that this is a reason for the request. No one is bothering to survey the patients. We know very little about the actual implementation of this law.
Also: if doctors say that the cases of PAS are on the up-and-up, that really shouldn’t make us feel better. Presumably if the doctor didn’t think the case was on the up-and-up, the doctor wouldn’t have participated in the first place. The cases we have to worry about are the cases when something is going on (depression, coercion, undue pressure, etc.) but the doctor doesn’t realize this. Considering some of these doctors have known the patient for less than a week, this is a cause for concern.