Surprise! I know that you were all expecting Brandon's post here, but...... Wait, no, come back! I promise, he'll have his post up a bit later in the week. I'm just filling in due to extenuating circumstances (and painkillers).
So, assisted suicide. I worried for a while about this post, because I (among other people) wasn't sure if there would be much variance between the posts - but since we've opened it up from just the legality of the issue (thank you, Kelsey, for an amazingly awesome intro post), I'm much more confident.
Initially, I'll talk a bit about the legality of assisted suicide. Virginia is somewhat odd in its handling of assisted suicide - there's been no real decision made on the matter, for the most part. There's a statute which imposes civil sanctions on anyone involved in suicide, but the act isn't clearly defined as criminal. There's really not a whole lot to debate, there, besides potentially comparing it to other states' policies. The majority of the United States treats assisted suicide as an explicitly criminal act... which I don't necessarily agree with. Yes, you're aiding in the death of someone, but if it's in accordance with their wishes and desires, should it really be considered -criminal-? That's not for me to decide, though, so I'm going to leave the legality bit right there.
My personal feelings, on the other hand, run much deeper (and along many more confusing, twisted paths). First off, we'll look at "Do Not Resuscitate". I have absolutely no problem with this concept - at least in terms of illness, or other debilitating diseases. If someone is dying to an illness, and their body fails, then by all means, let them go. Our bodies are incredibly resilient, and if they go through enough to shut down, I think it does more harm than good in trying to force them to do even more. I understand that it's hard for people to look on, armed with the knowledge that they could keep someone they care for from dying... but I also believe that allowing nature to run its course in those instances is a good first step toward healing. I do want to re-empathize that this references only instances involving diseases and the like - if a fairly healthy person ripped off their oxygen mask, or something, then the line would move a fair bit. I think that refusal of treatment falls into this definition, as well - it's a patient's right to refuse medical treatment, and if their body naturally gives out as a result... well, that was their decision.
So what about non-immediate dangers? If someone discovers they only have a year left to live, should assisted suicide be permissible? On the one hand, having that kind of thing over your head can (I'm assuming) be a fantastic motivator to do the things you've always wanted to, and really live life to its fullest. But is there a specific timeframe where it's acceptable? If someone has a year to live, and they have no desire to "live it up", why shouldn't they be able to just end their life then, and save themselves (and potentially their family) from unnecessary bills and expenses? ... I don't think there's a correct answer here, necessarily, but I do believe that a concerted effort should be made to hold off on any form of suicide for as long as possible. Technology has the potential to increase quickly enough that what seems impossible right now could be semi-commonplace in a year's time. Is it likely to happen? Who knows? But if you can keep the hope of living on alive, shouldn't that be enough to keep you going?
Reduced quality of life... this one is pretty tough. Let's take a paraplegic, for example. A "normal, everyday" person somehow gets hit by a car and will be confined to a wheelchair for the rest of their life. Is this a situation where assisted suicide would be acceptable? ... Basing my own personal feelings off the idea above, I'd still have to say no. Yes, the quality of their life would have changed in a (potentially) negative fashion - however, this doesn't mean that their life would no longer have meaning. Look at Stephen Hawking. He started being affected by amyotrophic lateral sclerosis at age 20. It's common for people to pass away within 10 years of being diagnosed with the disease - he's had it for five times that, and he's still alive. If he had just given up and chosen to commit suicide after his diagnosis... well, I can't even really imagine how things would be different. If that's not a compelling case, I don't know what is.
The involvement of doctors is a bit more clear-cut for me. One of the most basic cornerstones for physicians through the years has been the Hippocratic Oath (though it's become less widely used). I believed that people operating under the Hippocratic Oath were sworn to preserve life however and wherever they were able - however, I think that my viewpoint has changed after reading multiple translations of the Oath. The original version includes these lines:
I will give no deadly medicine to any one if asked, nor suggest any such counsel; and similarly I will not give a woman apessary to cause an abortion.
But I will preserve the purity of my life and my arts.
The classic translation of the Oath changes the lines to the following:
I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody if asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect. In purity and holiness I will guard my life and my art.
And, finally, the more modern translation reads as follows:
If it is given to me to save a life, all thanks. But it may also be within my power to take a life; this awesome responsibility must be faced with great humbleness and awareness of my own frailty. Above all, I must not play at God.
I will remember that I do not treat a fever chart, a cancerous growth, but a sick human being, whose illness may affect the person's family and economic stability. My responsibility includes these related problems, if I am to care adequately for the sick.
The modern translation seems to provide some form of direction for the issue - it's an unfortunate truth that hospital care in our country is rather expensive, and a prolonged stay will almost certainly strain most people's monetary situations. At some point, you have to weigh what's potentially best for one person against what's potentially best for others. Am I advocating doctor-assisted suicide? ... Not intentionally. But I do think that they have a place in helping people make decisions about their health and life. That's their job, after all.
I think I've rambled on enough - I'm going to wrap up with a personal thought. In most cases, I'm personally completely against suicide as an option (if you can even call it that) for people. Suicide can seem like a quick fix for life's problems, but the reality is that the person usually just passes their problems on to other people - generally, the ones who care about them. I've been in situations where friends, family members, and even the people I've cared most about have contemplated (and attempted... and, once, successfully committed) suicide. The sense of loss that accompanies suicide is tremendous, and not something that I would wish upon anyone. I only describe myself as against the idea in "most" cases because absolutes are rarely correct - but I'm pretty close. The other posts so far have been pretty interesting, and I'm looking forward to reading the others as they come.
As always. thanks for reading, and feel free to post any questions, thoughts, or flames below.
No comments:
Post a Comment