Oregon’s Death with Dignity Act allows a terminally ill person to request a prescription to end life if she or he qualifies under the law’s requirements. The requirements for a terminally ill patient to receive physician-assisted suicide (PAS) are the patient must have a life expectancy of no more than six months, the patient must make two oral requests and one written request to a physician to see if they qualify, and then wait 15 days after the initial oral request before receiving a prescription for lethal drugs. After the patient has completed these tasks, a second physician’s opinion is required to verify the diagnosis of the first physician and that the patient has made an informed decision. Physicians are not legally bound to provide life-ending medication to patients, nor to refer a patient to a different physician that would assist them in dying. The Task Force to Improve the Care of Terminally Ill Patients developed the book The Oregon Death With Dignity Act: A Guidebook for Health Care Providers to inform the public of how this act affects health care providers, terminally ill patients, and their families. Oregon’s Death with Dignity Act became a law on October 27, 1997, making it the first law of its kind to be issued in the United States.
It is common to use the term assisted suicide when referring to Oregon’s Death with Dignity Act, but according to Samuel Greenberg, a Professor at the University of Florida, “A person facing imminent death is not committing suicide as the term is ordinarily understood; he is just hastening the inevitable end.” Some may reply to this statement and say that everybody dies eventually, so why even classify killing yourself as suicide? But what Professor Greenberg meant is that if you are given a short timetable to live by knowledgeable doctors, it is not wrong for a person to prevent the torture and agony of living out his remaining days by getting a physician’s help to end his life early.
The first year this act was in use went smoothly as only 5 out of every 10,000 deaths were from assisted suicide, all deaths went quickly and smoothly and all legal guidelines were followed by the physicians and their patients. An organization was formed called The Oregon Health Division which became an advocate for the Death with Dignity Act. Their role is to provide accurate data to the public regarding participation in the act while keeping the confidentiality of the patients who received physician-assisted suicide.
Another organization that is affiliated with Oregon’s Death with Dignity Act is the Oregon Medical Association (OMA). The OMA made a statement to the press saying that “one of the most serious challenges to a physician and her practice under the new law is the additional time and energy she must expend in order to guarantee a rewarding and collaborative end of life for any patient who chooses to follow through with a request for a lethal prescription of drugs.” Agreeing with this argument, Myriam Coppens, a registered nurse, says that, “I’ve had the privilege of being present during the actual process . . . When a patient is clear about his wishes for aid in dying and we offer pain management instead, we run the risk that the patient will refuse pain management so that he can receive aid in dying.” She goes on to say, “I see nothing wrong with the 80-year-old woman’s decision. She had a philosophy of life that did not include use of pain medication. Had she accepted pain management, we would all feel better, but would she have felt better?” Some physicians might not want their patients to choose to die, but it is not up to them to choose, the choice lies in the hands of the terminally ill patient. In opposition to this statement, Peter Goodwin explains how Oregon’s Death with Dignity Act can be beneficial to the physician-patient relationship. He says, “If approached in the right spirit, Oregon’s Death with Dignity Act will lead to a more positively integrative approach to patients’ lives than physicians have sought or obtained in the recent past. Physicians could reevaluate the status of home visits within their individual practices, develop closer and more intimate relationships with their patients and their families, and to build a more cooperative relationship among other physicians. If it evolves in this direction, the result could be one of the most rewarding experiences for which a physician would hope.”
Attorney General Janet Reno released a statement to the press in November of 1998 about Oregon’s Death with Dignity Act. In her statement, she says the DEA cannot restrict a physician that aids a patient in suicide as long as they are following the laws under the Death with Dignity Act. She says Bill Clinton, the president at the time, “continues to maintain his longstanding position against assisted suicide and any Federal support for that procedure. This position was codified when he signed the Assisted Suicide Funding Restriction Act last year.”
In the Catechism, euthanasia and suicide are clearly stated as grave offenses. Paragraph 2277 states, “ . . . Thus an act or omission which, of itself or by intention, causes death in order to eliminate suffering constitutes a murder gravely contrary to the dignity of the human person and to the respect due to the living God, his creator . . . ” Another excerpt from the Catechism that really ties into the topic of Oregon’s Death with Dignity Act is from paragraph 2279. It reads, “Even if death is thought imminent, the ordinary care owed to a sick person cannot be legitimately interrupted. The use of painkillers to alleviate the sufferings of the dying, even at the risk of shortening their days, can be morally in conformity with human dignity if death is not willed as either an end or a means, but only foreseen and tolerated as inevitable. Palliative care is a special form of disinterested charity. As such it should be encouraged.” Palliative care is a form of medical care that concentrates on lessening the pain of a patient rather than trying to find a cure for the illness that is causing them pain.
Oregon’s Death with Dignity Act has been brought to court to try to be repealed but Oregon voters decided by a 60 percent to 40 percent to oppose the repeal of the act. After this loss in court, the Physicians for Compassionate Care (PCC) was created. The PCC is a group of Oregon physicians opposed to physician-assisted suicide that suggested posting a copy of one’s ethics in waiting rooms to try to influence a patient to turn away from assisted suicide. If this does not influence the patient to change their mind about assisted suicide, it will greater inform them of the ethical problems with what they are about to do which they will be fully aware of now. The PCC also recommends such simple things as not listing suicide as a possible option when talking with their patients about their choices for their illness.
The opposing sides to whether or not Oregon’s Death with Dignity Act is ethical or moral have been debating this topic ever since the passing of this law. Those who oppose the law say it is wrong to help somebody commit suicide mainly because of the moral values involved and also because it is harder on the physicians and nurses. The people that do not find this law immoral say that a terminally-ill patient should have the right to choose whether or not they should be able to end their life early through physician-assisted suicide to avoid feeling the pain caused by their illness.
Bibliography
Coppens, Myriam. “Death with Dignity.” The American Journal of Nursing 98 (1998) : 23 JSTOR. SLUH Lib., St. Louis, MO. 14 February 2008.
Hedberg, Katrina. “The Oregon Report: Neutrality at OHD?” The Hastings Center Report 30 (2000) : 4-5. JSTOR. SLUH Lib., St. Louis, MO. 14 February 2008.
Kirk, Kathy. “How Oregon’s Death with Dignity Act?” The American Journal of Nursing 98 (1998) : 54-55 JSTOR. SLUH Lib., St. Louis, MO. 14 February 2008.
Miller, Pamela J. “Life after Death with Dignity: The Oregon Experience.” Social Work 45 (2000) : 263-71. MAS Ultra - School Edition. SLUH Lib., St. Louis, MO. 14 February 2008.
Reno, Janet. “Oregon Law and the CSA.” Congressional Digest 77 (1998) : 262. MAS Ultra - School Edition. SLUH Lib., St. Louis, MO. 14 February 2008.
Woolfrey, Joan. “What Happens Now?” The Hastings Center Report 28 (1998) : 9-17 JSTOR. SLUH Lib., St. Louis, MO. 14 February 2008.
