Grube, MD David R. This is a column by David R. Grube practiced family medicine in Philomath, OR, for 35 years, retiring from clinical work in
The right to die with dignity - euthanasia Background 1. Voluntary euthanasia is the practice of ending life in a painless manner. Voluntary euthanasia is the humane, moral and civilised outcome for Australia and consistent with providing dignity for terminally ill patients who want it.
Australia, through the Euthanasia Laws Act, has denied people living in Territories the right, through their legislatures, to enact legislation permitting voluntary euthanasia, a right that is not denied people living in Australian States. It has denied terminally ill people the right to die with dignity.
The inability of State parliaments to stand up to organised religion also denies terminally ill people the right to die with dignity. I am the ACT Chapter Coordinator for Exit International, the voluntary euthanasia organisation headed by Dr Philip Nitschke, and approach this issue as a middle-aged Australian male, in good health, who is saddened by the attitude, even arrogance, of those who deny the rights of terminally ill patients to access information about end of life options, and about accessing voluntary euthanasia.
Other people do not know what is better for terminally ill patients than the patients themselves. Whether or not I ever have the desire to request voluntary euthanasia, I, and many others, want the option of voluntary euthanasia. A1 Arguments in support of voluntary euthanasia A1.
Accordingly, democratic societies can make laws to prohibit murder and robbery, but should not make laws to prohibit sex before marriage, religion, or voluntary euthanasia.
This is because terminally ill patients who desire euthanasia for themselves are not physically harming other people.
In explaining her situation, she questioned that if she cannot give consent to her own death, then whose body is it? It is anomalous that currently an act such as suicide can be legal, but to seek and gain assistance with that act is not.
In effect, the Euthanasia Laws Act inflicts a form of discrimination on those terminally ill patients who would like to commit suicide but do not have the means to do so.
These are exactly the people for whom the option of voluntary euthanasia is particularly appealing. Voluntary euthanasia would reduce suffering and loss of dignity for terminally ill patients.
The concept of individualism is fundamental to democratic political theory. In a democratic society, individualism posits that latitude be given to individuals to behave as they wish, and to develop and satisfy their interests. To deny a person the right to live his or her life as he or she wishes implies that each individual does not know what is right for himself or herself.
Individuals can make important decisions about their bodies when they are young, for example, they can decide to participate in dangerous sporting activities or women can choose to have an abortion.
However, since the Euthanasia Laws Act came into force, it seems that somewhere between the ages of twenty when some women might have an abortion and seventy the age of some terminally ill patients women lose legal control of their bodies.
The Euthanasia Laws Act and its impact on terminally ill people is a denial of rights. It represents moral oppression at a level rarely experienced in Australia. Members of the clergy, who seem to be the most vocal opponents of voluntary euthanasia, have imposed their values on euthanasia on other individuals through their opposition to the right to die, but I suspect that they would not entertain a reciprocal arrangement that impinged on their individual freedoms.
In the spirit of Voltaire, the clergy and other euthanasia opponents most certainly can remonstrate with people requesting euthanasia to change their minds, but they ought not to be able to compel them by insisting on a legislative fiat in a democracy.Oregon voters in approved a ballot initiative called the Death With Dignity Act.
This law allows Oregon physicians to prescribe, but not administer, drugs to assist the suicide of terminally ill patients who expect to die within six months.
He discusses the Oregon's Death with Dignity Act and their practice with PAS. Dieterle does not provide positive arguments for physician - assisted suicide because he believes that no anti-PAS argument has value. Although euthanasia is considered different than life support withdrawal, in that both acts hasten death, in the case of life support withdrawal, we are simply taking away a crutch that keeps the patient alive allowing the normal disease process to lead to death to occur.
Jul 10, · The Oregon Death with Dignity Act was passed as a ballot initiative in ; implementation was delayed by a legal injunction and the measure was returned to the ballot by the legislature and passed again in ; the Act became law on October 27 of that year.
Jul 09, · Thus, a healthy year-old with insulin-dependent diabetes could be deemed “terminal” for the purpose of Oregon’s “Death with Dignity Act.” So, too, patients refusing appropriate treatment may be deemed “terminal” under current interpretation of the Oregon regardbouddhiste.com: Euthanasia Prevention Coalition.
RE: Oregon Death With Dignity Act You asked for information on the Oregon Death With Dignity Act which was passed last November by the voters of that state as ballot measure You also wanted information about the Michigan Supreme Court decision on assisted suicide and on the euthanasia program in the Netherlands.