Anonymous
Anonymous asked in Politics & GovernmentPolitics · 1 decade ago

Was Oregon correct to offer a terminal cancer patient doctor-assisted suicide instead of medical care?

Some terminally ill patients in Oregon who turned to their state for health care were denied treatment and offered doctor-assisted suicide instead.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,392962,00.html

Update:

Research suggests your view will vary with region, religious views, and political persuasion.

Update 2:

This story was not picked up by the mainstream media or I would have given those suffering from Fox-o-phobia a link.

27 Answers

Relevance
  • 1 decade ago
    Favorite Answer

    WHAT??!! I can't believe I haven't heard of this yet. That is OUTRAGEOUS. Things are getting so out of control in this country. But that is just soo sick. So sad.

    By the way, i'm all for Hospice and end of life care, but for the state to deny help to recover but ok the assisted suicide only clearly conveys that a patients life is only as important as the money.

  • 1 decade ago

    Since they were denied treatment, and offered the DA suicide instead, I can't really agree with this. I would say that if the patient chose the DA suicide after being offered treatment to prolong what would otherwise be a very painful and short life, then that would be a choice that could possibly be presented to them as not to prolong suffering. However, the patient was denied treatment then offered DA suicide. I would say that this looks like coercion.

    This person was uninsured. The fact that Oregon will not pay for the treatment if there is less than a 5% chance of this person living more than 5 years I think is quite wrong. How can they place a value on prolonging this person's life for even one year? It could be extremely invaluable to this person.

    The fact that they would substitute a suggestion of DA suicide in place of treatment which the person cannot afford and they will not pay for is enough to suggest coercion.

    It's similar to asking an inmate to participate in experimental procedures (which is a classic example of unethical behavior). The inmate will think that their sentence will be lessened if they participate in the experiment. Therefore, their decision is not totally based on their free will.

    I believe this is a similar case. The patient desires so much to end their suffering, so they are willing to try whatever is necessary to stop their suffering.

    These are people that may be willing to fight for their lives if they are given the means to. If the means are taken away and their two options are reduced to: "Suffer" or "die", with no chance to try rehabilitation, the natural inclination for some of them will be death, whereas they would have chosen to have treatment if it were available. Taking away the ability of these people to fight for their lives and replacing it with an opportunity for them to die instead is unacceptable. They are being coerced into this decision. Coercing uninsured patients into DA suicide is extremely unethical.

    Source(s): RN
  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    Oregon passed a law years ago that ranked every medical condition with a score based on how expensive it was to treat and what the chances of success were. Then they said they would treat everything above a certain number and not treat things below that number. Americans use up a huge percentage of health care dollars treating people who are dying anyway, trying to get that last week or two of life. Since the cost of medical care is skyrocketing, a lot of people think the money is better spent on people who have a better chance of getting well.

    Did you know the cost we pay for health insurance in the US has risen 75% just since Bush came into office? And it was considered a crisis before that!

    I think doctor-assisted suicide is a valid option for people who are terminally ill and in constant pain. Why should taxpayers pay huge amounts to keep these people alive, even if they don't want to go on living? Of course it should be the patient's choice, otherwise it's not suicide, it's euthanasia.

    And also, -anything- you hear on Fox News, or the Washington Times, you should Google to see if other services have carried the story. If you find it only on one of those two sources, you can pretty much be sure it's either twisted so badly that you didn't get the whole story or else it's a lie altogether. Fox is not a legitimate news outlet.

  • 1 decade ago

    Well, in this case, the state doesn't provide the healthcare assistance if there is a less than five percent chance the patient will survive for five years. Given those odds, and the fact that the patients are listed as being terminal, I think they were right to offer the option of assisted suicide. I just don't think that should be the only option given.

    But, I can see the state's side. It's almost wasteful on their part to spend a great deal of money on a treatment that has at least a 95% chance of not working.

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

    You know, this is a topic I questioned when I was just a little girl, and we had to put my dog down. I asked my mom why they couldn't put humans to sleep like animals, to take them out of suffering?

    And now this pops up. I think it is a great idea. Why would anyone want to watch their loved ones gasp for air or suffer in pain. It says that medicare won't pay for treatment to prolon long if its less the 5% effective in kepping that person living 5 least 5 year. Thats a slow death, which there is no garentee that that person will live past 5 years. They are suffering. If I had a terminal illness, didnt have insurance, or even if I did, I would opt for the DAS over suffering,

  • Blah
    Lv 6
    1 decade ago

    For Porsche or anyone else who thinks FOX is misrepresenting it, read the article..."Oregon doesn't cover life-prolonging treatment unless there is better than a 5 percent chance it will help the patients live for five more years — but it covers doctor-assisted suicide, defining it as a means of providing comfort, no different from hospice care or pain medication."

    And Oregon is heavily liberal.

  • 1 decade ago

    I lost my father to Cancer, and had to sign DNR papers while he was in the hospital. Signing those papers was probably the hardest thing I have ever done in my life. I felt as if I was signing my father's death warrant. That being said I also knew that my father had lived his life EXACTLY as he'd wanted to and not being able to live they way he wanted to was already dying to him. What I'd wanted was the man I'd had my whole life and that person was already gone. So yes, I think Oregon was right. It's incredibly hard to watch someone you love with Cancer and I hate to hear other criticize those who advocat assisted suicde....don't get me wrong, I'm NOT an advocator of assisted suicide.....but if the person with a terminal disease WANTS to go with dignity then they should be allowed that right. Making them sufffer in their last days is just plain wrong.

  • 1 decade ago

    Absolutely not! This is completely absurd!!!! Since when did the state get to play God. They are only willing to pay for treatments for patients where there is a greater then 5% chance of them surviving. I am completely blown away that the state is doing this. How sad what this world has become!

  • 1 decade ago

    If you believe the news the way foxnews presents it, you are almost bound to get the wrong idea about what actually happened.

    The patients concerned were not denied treatment, they were offered medically assisted suicide as an alternative to long, wearisome, nauseating, sometimes painful, and probably unsuccessful, treatment.

  • Sam C
    Lv 5
    1 decade ago

    Sure it's correct. They're going to die and they know it. Why rack up so much medical debt to the family when they can end it the way they want. Personally, I don't need the expense of a doctor's help. I have a .45 bullet with my name on it and it's made of gold just for me by me.

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    They only offer that to Republicans . It's a good thing.

    Seriously...You people are always bitching about welfare . If you have your own insurance this does not apply. These are people on public assistance. You don't care about them anyway. Also this is a state funded deal. If we had Federal funded health care it would not be a cost restraint to keep people living. You are being disingenuous.

    BTW...you can go to Mexico and get a drug from animal vets for putting down pets. Many "Right to Deathers" are doing that.

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.