Allright, I can admit to being wrong. Can you?

A study on Oregon's "Right to Die" law has shown that there has been "No rush to end one's life, no people flocking here from other states, no pressure from family, doctors, and insurance companies to commit suicide." And instead there has been an increase in Hospice care as a result of more information about the process of dying.

My question is, "Even though there has been no rush to take advantage of the law is it still OK to expect a doctor to end a person's life?"

Read the story here(and I would encourage you to read it if you want to be taken seriously)

http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20070312/ts_csm/aendof...

Update:

You can tell who actually read the article and who didn't.

7 Answers

Relevance
  • 1 decade ago
    Favorite Answer

    That's the whole point.

    The doctor is not ending the person's life. It's not euthanasia.

    It's assisted suicide. The patient is ending their own life. That's a crucial distinction. All the doctor is doing is providing a safe and efficient means for the patient to end their own life.

    And nothing in the law compels a doctor to write the prescription for the medication. It's voluntary.

  • 1 decade ago

    Wow.Very good article.

    I've never seen how assisting a person in their desire to die a dignified,relatively painless death was in any way a violation of the Hippocratic Oath.

    I have seen relatives die horrible and prolonged deaths filled with agony and heartbreak.To be able to to avoid that and with medical assistance is something that should be embraced,not condemned.

    I'm not really sure that it even qualifies as suicide under those circumstances.

  • 1 decade ago

    Color me unsurprised. To answer your question, I believe that if a Dr. May legally declare someone dead, he should be able to legally declare that a person's situation is hopeless. What that person chooses to do is their business. The Dr. may only counsel and inform at that point, carrying out the patient's wishes. It's the best for the Doctor (Who will not feel forced to offer false hope) and the patient, who will finally gain closure.

  • Jadis
    Lv 6
    1 decade ago

    This is one issue I'm very liberal on. I really do not understand why it's "inhumane" to starve an animal to death, but we do it to severely disabled people all the time. Have you ever had to *watch* someone die after the feeding tube is removed? Thank God, I haven't - but my best friend did and it was absolutely *horrible*. It would have been far easier for everyone involved had it be legal to just *humanely* have a doctor help ease her way out of this world.

    Hell, we wouldn't even starve a convicted serial killer to death....so why do it to the disabled or the sick? If - God forbid - anything awful ever happens to me, I've left instructions to take my *** to Oregon and end my suffering.

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • 1 decade ago

    Even though the law hasn't been abused, the idea of doctors ending rather than saving lives is abhorrent. If a person wishes to end his/her life, I disagree with the decision on religious grounds but would not make that illegal. Dr assisted suicide flies in the face of thousands of years of medical ethics.

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    Thank you for the honesty and integrity...and for the very informative article.

  • 1 decade ago

    No doctor should do anything to hasten the ending of life.

    Hospice care is something else-- no aggressive measures are taken. in other words, nature is neft to take its' course.

    The only measures are to alleviate pain.

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.