Physician Assisted suicide
...ne, fluids and lorazepam hung from a silver IV rack next to Brian's bed, with IV lines funneling into the catheter in his chest. Rushing into Brian's veins along with the medication was the realization that his independence was sliding away from him. He had reached the point when being dead seems better than being alive. For these terminally ill patients is why I propose that the United States should follow the president set by the state of Oregon for the legalization of physician assisted-suicide in terminally ill patients. From Meriam-Websters medical dictionary, physician assisted suicide is suicide by a patient facilitated by means or information (as a drug prescription or indication of the lethal dosage) provided by a physician who is aware of how the patient intends to use such means or information. In the case of Oregon, a patient would have to go through a number of physical and psychological tests and then request for their doctor to help them end their life. The doctor would then prescribe a barbiturate, which is a heavy sedative and anesthetic, and anti-nausea medication in lethal doses so the patient could end their life. After ingestion, the average patient becomes unconscious within about five minutes and dead within an hour. Oregon passed the Death with Dignity law for the first time in 1994 by a 51 to 49% vote. By 1997, conservatives in the state forced a second public referendum to have the issue revoted on. This time there was much public debate and advocacy for and against the law. But, when it came time to vote, the people spoke again and this time it was again in favor only by a 60-40% margin. The main controversy about the death with dignity law is the same as with abortion. People are forced to think about the moral and ethical issues surrounding the law and whether it is right to allow someone to kill themselves. This issue was answered in 1986 when the Supreme Court allowed Elizabeth Bouvia, a cerebral palsy victim, to remove the life-sustaining feeding tube as part of her rights to privacy under the United States constitution. In removing the feeding tube, she was killing herself and the Supreme Court said she had every right to do so. This case provided that just like people have a right to life they also have the right to death. Under the Death with Dignity law, they are allowed this decision and are in a sound mind when doing so. This can not be argued like abortion, because the so-called victim gets to choose the outcome for themselves. What the death with Dignity law is simply doing is hastening the inevitable. It does not allow for people to walk off the streets into a doctor’s office and tell them they want to die. That is impossible. What it does provide is for the patient to decide when and where they want to die and to do it in a painless and easy way. This is the one thing that they can grasp control of in their last few months, or they can die writhing in pain like Brian Lovell did. In regards to the legality of the issue, the chief of the drug enforcement administration Attorney general John Ashcroft declared that “assisting a terminally ill person to commit suicide is not a “legitimate medical purpose” for federally controlled drugs.” This was later overturned by a three judge panel of the 9th U.S. circuit court of appeals. Judge Richard Tallman reported in his majority opinion that John Ashcroft’s action was unlawful and unenforceable. He wrote,” The attorney general’s unilateral attempt to regulate medical practices historically entrusted to state lawmakers interferes with the democratic ...