Personal tools

Argument: Third party euthanasia regulators can ensure against abuse (family, doctor...)

From Debatepedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Parent debate

Supporting quotations

In Compassion in Dying v. Washington (1996), the United States 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, in a decision delivered by Circuit Judge Stephen Reinhardt, stated: - "There is a far more serious concern regarding third parties that we must consider…the fear that infirm, elderly persons will come under undue pressure to end their lives from callous, financially burdened, or self-interested relatives, or others who have influence over them... While we do not minimize the concern, the temptation to exert undue pressure is ordinarily tempered to a substantial degree in the case of the terminally ill by the knowledge that the person will die shortly in any event. Given the possibility of undue influence that already exists, the recognition of the right to physician-assisted suicide would not increase that risk unduly. In fact, the direct involvement of an impartial and professional third party in the decision-making process would more likely provide an important safeguard against such abuse."[1]

Michael White, J.D., "Yes" column to the question "Should Physician-Assisted Suicide Be Legalized? Before I Die: Medical Care and Personal Choices, a Fred Friendly Seminar". PBS. April 22, 1997 - "In a workable system, the option of physician-assisted suicide would arise only after all treatment options are exhausted, the best of hospice and palliative care has failed to relieve unbearable suffering, and if a mentally competent patient continues to request assistance in dying. Then, with outside opinion concurring, a physician would be permitted to prescribe medication that the patient could use to hasten death at a time of the patient's choice."[2]

Problem with the site? 

Tweet a bug on bugtwits