The Constitution writers would have scarcely fathomed the concept of assisted suicide; we must appreciate the Christian and church-dominated context of society at that time.
But our founding document provides for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness without respect to religious beliefs. If a person wants to terminate their life because of severe pain, imminent death, or loss of cognitive function (such as Alzheimer’s, or brain damage) then they have the right to do so.
This is why a Living Will is essential if you’re worried about laying in a nursing home as a vegetable when your brain fails and your body refuses to die. This document contains the directives which will guide your friends or relatives towards fulfilling your wishes when you are unable to communicate.
Certainly if someone has dependents this changes the equation. They should be counseled and encouraged to persevere in the interest of others who count on them. Society is knit together by responsible citizens and assisted suicide cannot be offered to someone for whom it is not a medical issue.
By all means there are abuses, but the controls set in place by the state of Oregon are reasonable and will severely limit the practice of abuse. Indeed, the law in Oregon has been in place since 1994 and there is no great outcry of unjust slaughter in the media, who are generally quick to jump on such issues.
Religious considerations are highly personal and are guaranteed by our nation’s law; but these personal preferences cannot be used to force one to behave as another’s belief system dictates.
This is consistent with what the non-revisionist version of the Constitution really guarantees. What I believe is irrelevant; it’s what the prospective suicide participant thinks that counts.
Insurance companies would happily save money by putting patients with expensive and long-term maladies to death; so the Oregon second opinion requirement is a good safeguard. We must staunchly defend against terminating life if saving money is the only justification.
Consider the burgeoning nursing home population in America today. Many of these poor souls are just sitting around waiting to die. The geriatric care industry is no doubt in great fear of assisted suicide as they stand to lose a lot of money. Most people want to tough it out to the very end so fearsome tales of long lines of people waiting to die by assisted suicide are unfounded. It’s an emotional ploy with no basis in reality.
Conclusion: Euthansia is certainly ethical, just as with a suffering animal. When taken on a case by case basis, we can find a place for a compassionate end to the suffering of a terminally ill, chronically ill, or incapacitated person; but only with some oversight (as in Oregon) to prevent victimizing those who suffer or might be mentally ill.
