Right To Die – Law, Public Support, Health Care
1. Law of Right To Die:
In Gonzales v. Oregon, the Court attempted to discern whether Oregon’s law of physician aided suicide was legal. The majority concluded that the principles of federalism protected the states right to regulate medical practices. The Death with Dignity Act allowed terminally ill people to end their lives through voluntary self-administration of lethal medications; prescribed by a physician.
The history is interesting. There was another case in 1990, Cruzan v. Director, in which it was decided that Due Process only protected a person insofar as they can refuse medical treatment. Thus, this comatose patient was able to refuse (through proxy) the ability end life. Later, in two cases challenged the right to assisted suicide, the next logical step.Interestingly the appellate courts found in favor of assistance in one court under “right to privacy” (3rd, 4th, 5th, 9th ) and the other under Equal Protection (14th Amendment Due Process). However, the Supreme Court said that no such protections exist.
At any rate, the current status is that a person can not just invoke some “right to die”, they must be in a state like Oregon that expressly passed legislation that is Constitutionally protected by federalism.
2. Public Support:
A solid majority of Americans (60%) believe a person has a moral right to end their life if they are suffering great pain and have no hope of improvement. Nearly as many (53%) believe a person has a moral right to end their life if suffering from an incurable disease. But far fewer see a right to suicide in other circumstances. Just a third say a person is morally justified in ending their life because living has become a burden. People-press.org
Public support clearly is not in favor of suicide when life is a “Burden”.
3. Health Care Costs:
Question:
Considering the legal implications, public opinion, and health care costs, is it reasonable to entertain the idea of assisted suicide for seniors?
Holland is thinking about letting seniors above the age of 70 voluntarily commit suicide if they consider their lives complete.
A campaign to give elderly people in the Netherlands the right to assisted suicide said Monday it has gathered more than 100000. CTV News.
I think the debate must center around widespread conversation of ethics. But, the conversation is no longer moot. Interesting.
I 100% agree that a person who is suffering and makes a decision to end their life without any outside influence should be able to do so. The problem is that some people will be influenced by family, friends etc. into a decision they may not be comfortable with and no coming back from.
It is for that reason only, I can not say I firmly stand on either side of the question. Like many other tough questions that face us as a society, there is going to be collateral damage either way.
There certainly many dilemma’s facing seniors. On one hand, I have known many clinically depressed people who are just ready to “get out”. I feel that therapy may give an appreciation for life, but then again, I have never been a senior. I did a research project a while back about the huge problem of senior suicide being brushed aside. Apparently, it occurs at very high rates but since they are old, no inquiry is ever made and thus for lack of statistics it has remained a non-issue. I feel there must be a medium. I just don’t think it is moral to force people to overdose, alone and in suffering. By the same token, what if families unduly burden grandma with guilt that she is destroying family wealth.
I took one look at the ethics of this and realized it was a post for another day. I would appreciate clarifying comments and ideas.
I want to know why we think it’s our job to keep people from ending their lives, at anytime. Suicide may very well be the answer and I think it’s just a little arrogant to go around telling people they can deal with it and there’s help, yada yada. If you want out, get out. This game may not be for everyone.
I’m not being snarky. This is really how I feel.
I think your substantively correct. However, as a little hypothetical: What if your healthy 25 year old sibling after finishing college becomes deeply depressed. This has always been an issue, but now it has peaked. Your sibling has written up a will, thought about it extensively, and taken care of everything. I refuse as a brother and a fellow human being to allow a person to end their life based on an illness. Beyond ethics, I think society have compelling reasons to prohibit this behavior.
My point is the claim of government interference works only so far and really just applies to seniors. There are other concerns, remember that seniors are often pushed around by their children and others. It’s not a cut and dry issue.