Currently, Oregon is the one and only state in the United States where active euthanasia is legal. In this post I will discuss how this law came to be about and the components of this law. It all began in 1994 when voters approved of active euthanasia. Like numerous other locations, there are certain criterias that have to be met in order of active euthanasia to be approver:
· The patient has to be terminally ill
· The patient must have 6 months or left to live (per doctor)
· The patient must make two verbal requests for euthanasia
· The patients must make one written request for euthanasia
· The patients must prove to two doctors that he/she truly wants to be euthanized and that it is not just an impulse decision
· The patient must not have depression as an influence for the euthanasia request
· The patient must know of ‘feasible alternatives’
· The patient must wait 15 days
All of these steps must be taken in Oregon before a person’s wish for euthanasia can be granted. At the end of 1998, after the law was passed, 65% of persons who applied for euthanasia ended there life. These points are most likely the laws that will be taken if active euthanasia is legalized all over the United States. Also after these laws were put into place studies were taken as to why most people opted for euthanasia in Oregon. About 84% of person’s reason was fear of loss of autonomy. This was shocking to me because I would have guessed that it would have been something such as un relievable pain. This statistic associated withfear of loss of autonomy is something that health care providers should zero in on when providing care to terminally ill patients. This is not a reason to legalize euthanasia. What are your thoughts?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I do not necessarily think that this is the top reason to legalize euthanasia, but I feel like it does bring up a good point. In America, we strive to be our own person; an individual with our own freedoms. And isn't that what autonomy is? If a person no longer has the ability to make their own decisions and control their actions, they will most likely end up unhappy. Loss of autonmy is a scary thing and if the illness that is overtaking the patient could cause this loss, would they really want to live this way?
ReplyDeleteA number of facts in your blog post are grossly inaccurate. In addition to Oregon, Washington state also has adopted Death with Dignity. Montana is also experiencing a case before the state Supreme Court that, if upheld, determines aid in dying constitutional. Montana's law, unlike those in Oregon and Washington, because it comes through the courts and not the legislature, does not have the same restrictions.
ReplyDeleteThe terms used in this debate are highly contested. Advocates tend to use aid in dying or death with dignity because they see the patient is already sentenced to death by illness or age. What death with dignity does is provide the patient a choice of how they will die.
Opponents tend to conflate death with dignity with suicide, assisted suicide (a more inflammatory term than aid in dying) and of course euthanasia.
The use of these terms vary around the world; Canada, Britain, Chile, Australia and other nations are also engaged in heated discourse regarding aid in dying, including those nations where it is legal.
I humbly recommend that if you wish to focus on assisted suicide, you work doubly hard at providing your readers with accurate, reliable and sourced information. No one benefits from misinformation regarding this very important care issue.
I agree that euthanasia should not be legalized. I was not aware of the fact that Oregon had legal euthanasia. Euthanasia is a permanent solution to suffering. Those who experience suffering should exalt all other options before opting to end their own life.
ReplyDelete