Subaqua Sternal Rubs

Back in High School, I took part in a novel new program called New Visions: Health Careers Exploration. It was an awesome program where I spent half of each school day of my senior year in a hospital, participating in both academic classes (A&P, Health Economics, Ethics, etc.), as well as direct observation of all aspects of a hospital, up to and including open-heart surgery and the autopsy of a 1 year old. One of our assignments was debating current issues in health care, and I chose the "pro" side of euthanasia. At the time, Oregon's "Death with Dignity" act had just recently been passed. Coming across the following article: 1) brought back memories of the fun times I had in the program, and 2) reminded me of how much I disagree with George W. Bush and his "faith-based" policies that are blurring the line between church and state.

In an action likely to reopen a national debate over whether doctors should be able to help terminally ill patients end their lives, the Supreme Court agreed on Tuesday to hear the Bush administration's challenge to the only state law in the country that authorizes physician-assisted suicide.

Oregon's Death With Dignity Act, the administration's target, was approved twice by the state's voters and took effect in November 1997. According to the state, in a brief filed last month, 171 patients have used the law to administer lethal doses of federally regulated drugs that their doctors prescribed for them.

In the administration's view, suicide is not a "legitimate medical purpose" under regulations that carry out the federal Controlled Substances Act. Consequently, the administration will argue before the Supreme Court, as it did unsuccessfully in the lower federal courts, that doctors who prescribe drugs for committing suicide violate the federal law and are subject to revocation of their federal prescription license. The license applies to broad categories of medications and is necessary, as a practical matter, for a doctor to remain in practice.

The law contains precise procedures for informed consent, including an explanation to the patient of alternatives to suicide, like pain relief and hospice care. Two doctors must agree on the patient's mental competence, diagnosis and prognosis; there must be a "reasonable medical judgment" that the patient will die within six months of "an incurable and irreversible disease."

Continue reading at The NY Times

A physician's goal is to end suffering. If a patient has no meaningful chance of recovery, and their daily suffering reduces their quality of life to such a low level that living is causing more suffering than dying, then why take away their chance at making peace with their loved ones and then comfortably passing away? Quality of life is what is important here, not quantity. This should be an issue that is decided between a patient and his/her physician, not by decree of the Federal Government.

Email to Friend Print