Hope you don't mind if I yoink this soapbox for just a moment. I know it's unprecedented. Just go with it; this will help me prepare for my debate tomorrow.
In Support of the Argument Against Physician-Assisted Suicide in California.
First off, all personal beliefs aside it is important to recognize the natural arguments against the passage of legislation in California similar to Oregon's "Death With Dignity Act." Most notably, there are a host of important social issues raised with the prospect of such a shift in the medical community. First of all, we must recognize the potential sociological problems that may occur. While it would at first glance seem logical and even merciful to grant such options to patients desiring a peaceful death of their own choosing, take a moment to consider the radical shifts that would likely occur across all levels of society.
Chiefly, consider the problems raised for those most personally involved in any act of physician-assisted suicide. If it becomes possible for a patient to request a lethal injection at his or her convenience, death may well become trivialized and even commercialized in the near future. Currently, few people question an infirm patient's right to utilize their own resources, as well as those of the family and the community to maintain their vitals through use of medical facilities and equipment. However, with the advent of physician-assisted suicide strictures the possibility of ending life knowingly and prematurely becomes commonplace, leading to the inevitable suicide due primarily to matters of finance. For example, if the hypothetical Grandpa Joe has been suffering from a terminal form of malignant cancer and requires a battery of expensive medical care in order to sustain himself, he may feel pressured to end his life early in order to avoid saddling his family with significant amounts of debt. While this may occur even now, with the wide-spread acceptance of early termination such ethical dilemnas will inevitably become commonplace among the senior citizen population.
Also consider the moral burden such legislation would place on the medical community. For the most part, a physicians' purpose in life is to aid and abet human life; only in rare cases is it considered acceptable to assist in ending someone's life, and then only when all heroic measures have been exhausted. With the advent of assisted suicide laws, physicians would be saddled with the responsibility of either aiding imploring patients in committing what amounts to state-sanctioned murder, or having to refuse the entreaties of needy patients and their responsible medical organizations based on moral or ethical qualms. Either way, this new ruling complicates and in my opinion lowers the quality of emotional satisfaction most medical practioners derive from their employment, a key factor in this particular line of work.
Sociological complications aside, one must also consider the possibility of what has been lightly termed a "slippery slope" phenomenon emerging. In the governance of human affairs, man has always walked a fine line when it comes to the death of others. The death penalty is not widely championed; in fact it is currently illegal in California, the subject of this debate. How then is it acceptable as a state that we frown on sanctioning the murder of convicted felons, yet may well condone the same techniques used on our own upstanding citizens, who may not be in their right mind at the time of such a request? If we allow physicians to hold the right to life over their patients in such an immediate manner, what are we saying about our values as a society? Given my earlier prognostications, how long will it be before we begin to see legislation not only regulating but mandating assisted suicide for citizens of a certain physical specimen? The possible ramifications of this particular line of morbid reasoning are terrifying to consider: is it not foreseeable that if we allow this sort of practice to carry on, it may some day become acceptable for physicians themselves to decide a patients right to life? Indeed, might it not come to pass that in some dismal future doctors may stalk the halls of hospitals and hospices alike, leering in at every dark doorway and fingering their pockets full of deadly dosage, while spectral balance sheets and shadowy quarterly reports prance alluringly in their mind? While such a possibility may seem unlikely at this point, it remains our responsibility as custodians of future generations to stop and consider in detail every ramification of our decision. The choices we make echo through the halls of history, and we must strive to make such weighty reverberations as euphonious as possible.
Wow.
Tell me that didn't take up the whole damn page?
I'm going to bed.
In Support of the Argument Against Physician-Assisted Suicide in California.
First off, all personal beliefs aside it is important to recognize the natural arguments against the passage of legislation in California similar to Oregon's "Death With Dignity Act." Most notably, there are a host of important social issues raised with the prospect of such a shift in the medical community. First of all, we must recognize the potential sociological problems that may occur. While it would at first glance seem logical and even merciful to grant such options to patients desiring a peaceful death of their own choosing, take a moment to consider the radical shifts that would likely occur across all levels of society.
Chiefly, consider the problems raised for those most personally involved in any act of physician-assisted suicide. If it becomes possible for a patient to request a lethal injection at his or her convenience, death may well become trivialized and even commercialized in the near future. Currently, few people question an infirm patient's right to utilize their own resources, as well as those of the family and the community to maintain their vitals through use of medical facilities and equipment. However, with the advent of physician-assisted suicide strictures the possibility of ending life knowingly and prematurely becomes commonplace, leading to the inevitable suicide due primarily to matters of finance. For example, if the hypothetical Grandpa Joe has been suffering from a terminal form of malignant cancer and requires a battery of expensive medical care in order to sustain himself, he may feel pressured to end his life early in order to avoid saddling his family with significant amounts of debt. While this may occur even now, with the wide-spread acceptance of early termination such ethical dilemnas will inevitably become commonplace among the senior citizen population.
Also consider the moral burden such legislation would place on the medical community. For the most part, a physicians' purpose in life is to aid and abet human life; only in rare cases is it considered acceptable to assist in ending someone's life, and then only when all heroic measures have been exhausted. With the advent of assisted suicide laws, physicians would be saddled with the responsibility of either aiding imploring patients in committing what amounts to state-sanctioned murder, or having to refuse the entreaties of needy patients and their responsible medical organizations based on moral or ethical qualms. Either way, this new ruling complicates and in my opinion lowers the quality of emotional satisfaction most medical practioners derive from their employment, a key factor in this particular line of work.
Sociological complications aside, one must also consider the possibility of what has been lightly termed a "slippery slope" phenomenon emerging. In the governance of human affairs, man has always walked a fine line when it comes to the death of others. The death penalty is not widely championed; in fact it is currently illegal in California, the subject of this debate. How then is it acceptable as a state that we frown on sanctioning the murder of convicted felons, yet may well condone the same techniques used on our own upstanding citizens, who may not be in their right mind at the time of such a request? If we allow physicians to hold the right to life over their patients in such an immediate manner, what are we saying about our values as a society? Given my earlier prognostications, how long will it be before we begin to see legislation not only regulating but mandating assisted suicide for citizens of a certain physical specimen? The possible ramifications of this particular line of morbid reasoning are terrifying to consider: is it not foreseeable that if we allow this sort of practice to carry on, it may some day become acceptable for physicians themselves to decide a patients right to life? Indeed, might it not come to pass that in some dismal future doctors may stalk the halls of hospitals and hospices alike, leering in at every dark doorway and fingering their pockets full of deadly dosage, while spectral balance sheets and shadowy quarterly reports prance alluringly in their mind? While such a possibility may seem unlikely at this point, it remains our responsibility as custodians of future generations to stop and consider in detail every ramification of our decision. The choices we make echo through the halls of history, and we must strive to make such weighty reverberations as euphonious as possible.
Wow.
Tell me that didn't take up the whole damn page?
I'm going to bed.
11:08 PM |
Category: |
0
comments
Comments (0)