To start off, thanks to John for covering for me yesterday. I had my wisdom teeth removed on Monday, and I've been kind of out of it ever since. Not 100% sure how much sense I'll be making, but I haven't taken any painkillers since late Tuesday night/early Wednesday morning, so I'm gonna give this my best shot.
The legality of this issue is a messy one, though really, I don't know if it should be. As Kelsey mentioned, there are a couple of states that allow it, and the conditions on it are pretty restrictive. Multiple doctors need to sign a form saying that you only have a few months to live, and then that's it. It seems like a pretty decent set of restrictions, after all, we can't have people running around getting poison from the doctor whenever they want. This seemed like an acceptable idea, and I actually wrote a research paper in favor of it in high school. However, as time as passed, other situations that it doesn't quite cover have left me less and less comfortable with it.
Most immediately, the issue of terminal illnesses that won't kill you immediately. As the title of this post suggests, the idea of dementia terrifies me. The idea of going on living as this empty shell of who I used to be is just... it's terrifying. I would hate to go on with life that way. It just sounds unbearable.
This may sound heartless, but I don't think that Do Not Resuscitate orders and refusing treatment are that different from straight up going the assisted suicide route. The only difference is that it's passive instead of active as a choice.
What it comes down to is that if somebody is ready to die, then they should have the legal right to do so. The mechanism used to enact that choice isn't nearly as relevant. Forcing people to go on beyond the point where they've ceased to really be people against their wishes isn't right, and I think the law needs to allow this option. I'm not really sure of the best way to adjust the existing law in states that allow it. Perhaps opening the option up to anyone with a terminal illness regardless of how long they have to live, but requiring them to sit on the decision for a certain number of months before they can actually do it? I don't know.
Well, that ended up being rather depressing. We'll be returning to our normal post schedule tomorrow with Pendleton, and again, thank you to John for posting early.
I think the difference with DNRs is that it'll only allow you to die if the body is actively trying to do so itself. XP
ReplyDeleteBut the thing is that if we have a way to prevent the death, the DNR is still a choice being made to prevent the prevention of death. I mean, I suppose that it has a much stricter standards for what it means to be basically dead, but as far as the "morality" of the choice goes, I really don't think it's any different.
Delete