by Stephanie Grant

Created on: May 12, 2009   Last Updated: May 14, 2009

As controversial as physician-assisted euthanasia may sound, one must put into perspective what exactly is a patient's right and where do we draw the line. Yes, every patient deserves their moral right to decide how the end of their life should take course, but euthanasia procedures are not at all what they are boosted up to be.

In Oregon, the only state where, by law, a doctor can prescribe an intentional lethal dose of drugs to shorten a terminally ill patient's life, patient rights are clearly defined. Under Oregon's Assisted Suicide Law, a man whose prognosis for being terminally ill from lung cancer was prescribed a fatal dose of medication that was promised to take his life "peacefully", however that was not the case for him. In this situation, this man had every right to end his suffering medically by law but only worsened his complications of dying. The question is, did this patient have the right to choose his death by dignity? Yes. On the contrast, he did not anticipate the acute complications from the lack of medical evaluation and proper dosage of euthanasia medication. Once again, rights are misconstrued, just a bit, no?

In another case, a 42 year old man ingested one-hundred capsules of the Barbiturate Seconal, as instructed by his doctor, and he awoke three days later wondering what happened and why on earth he was alive. He signed up for physician assisted suicide and he expected results, as this was his moral autonomy. Oregon pharmacy investigators are looking into the case to study the capsules and or the reason why due care didn't transpire. Nothing fair about this, however, it is a patients "right" justified by a law no less. Rights or not, no one deserves to "not pass" when they were promised "to pass peacefully".

First of all, physician-assisted suicide physicians (could) overlook a patient's state of mind and motive to die, initially corrupting the fidelity between physician-patient relationships. Patients make a critical decision whether to die naturally or under the hands of a doctor because they are being educated and possibly influenced that it is their very own right. Given the scenario of a depressed young patient with a prognosis of 3-6 months to live with due to an idiopathic pulmonary disease, could easily become influenced by their state of mental health when the detrimental choice is being made in ones mind. This case is just one of countless patients who suffer greatly from side effects due to terminal disease; one of those side effects are from pain medication and the overall emotional instability to make clear choices.

Back to the 42 year-old man with lung cancer that was prognosed and given the option to die rightfully, so to speak. Now think, if the law wasn't present he would have lived out the remaining of his life following the upmost comfort measures possible. Bottom line is, he wouldn't have died without dignity, finally passing away 2 weeks after complications from the Seconal that was far from a pain-free way out. Yes, patients have every right but they don't deserve the lies. The system has it's definete corruptions and even though medical procedures can't promise perfect results, physicians who support the euthanasia program should at least stand up to the mistakes and lives hurt while in the making of this touchy practice. Nonetheless, euthansia assisted suicide leaders continue to blur the lines between killing patients and killing pain.

Research Ref:

http://CatholicExchange.com/2005/07/19/94091/

http://www.oregon.gov/DHS/ph/pas/faqs.shtml

Learn more about this author, Stephanie Grant.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.