Many people who are suffering from a long-term or terminal illness wish to end their suffering in a humane and dignified way. This has recently become a controversial topic in the United States as more people advocate for the right to end their own lives. Today, there are a handful of assisted suicide states in America that allow this.
Currently, Washington, Vermont and Oregon allow physician-assisted deaths. Montana and New Mexico may soon allow this due to recent court cases that may be appealed. The main argument against this practice is that allowing doctors to help patients to end their life violates their Hippocratic Oath, which all doctors have traditionally taken. The Hippocratic Oath basically promises to do no harm to a patient. There are also various religious objections to this practice as well, from both Christian and non-Christian faiths.
In New Mexico, a doctor may help a terminally ill patient to die and not be prosecuted. This is according to a court decision handed down in 2014; however, this case is currently being appealed, so advocates and legal authorities are waiting to see if it will be overturned.
In December 2009, the Supreme Court of Montana ruled that there was nothing in the law of the state which prevented a patient from asking for physician-assisted suicide. This essentially paved the way for these procedures in Montana. The Montana courts have also ruled that there is a constitutional right to privacy and that patients should have the dignity to die as they choose.
Despite these arguments, the U. S. Supreme Court ruled in 1997 that a person does not have a constitutional right to assisted suicide. This has allowed states to pass various laws prohibiting such procedures. Helping someone to commit suicide is deemed a felony by most state laws.
There is also the issue of religious ethics. Many religions in principle do not support the idea of doctors using their skills and knowledge to bring an end to the life of a patient. For example, Buddhism urges people to refrain from deliberately killing another living being. Judeo-Christian beliefs also condemn suicide as an affront to the gift of life from the Creator.
Many health care professionals oppose this practice due to the possible harmful effects it may have on certain vulnerable people. This is often called the slippery slope argument, which is based on the fear that once society permits assisted suicide or euthanasia for terminally ill people it will start to affect other vulnerable people as well, such as the disabled and the elderly. The concern is that it might be used by people who feel unworthy to live because of their age or disability.
New Mexico ruled recently that a terminally ill patient has a constitutional right to receive help in dying. While state law declares it a felony to help a person commit suicide, the judge in the case ruled that the constitutional right of the terminally ill person overruled the state law. Therefore, it is unclear if this ruling applies throughout all of New Mexico or only to the county where the ruling was made.
Currently, Washington, Vermont and Oregon allow physician-assisted deaths. Montana and New Mexico may soon allow this due to recent court cases that may be appealed. The main argument against this practice is that allowing doctors to help patients to end their life violates their Hippocratic Oath, which all doctors have traditionally taken. The Hippocratic Oath basically promises to do no harm to a patient. There are also various religious objections to this practice as well, from both Christian and non-Christian faiths.
In New Mexico, a doctor may help a terminally ill patient to die and not be prosecuted. This is according to a court decision handed down in 2014; however, this case is currently being appealed, so advocates and legal authorities are waiting to see if it will be overturned.
In December 2009, the Supreme Court of Montana ruled that there was nothing in the law of the state which prevented a patient from asking for physician-assisted suicide. This essentially paved the way for these procedures in Montana. The Montana courts have also ruled that there is a constitutional right to privacy and that patients should have the dignity to die as they choose.
Despite these arguments, the U. S. Supreme Court ruled in 1997 that a person does not have a constitutional right to assisted suicide. This has allowed states to pass various laws prohibiting such procedures. Helping someone to commit suicide is deemed a felony by most state laws.
There is also the issue of religious ethics. Many religions in principle do not support the idea of doctors using their skills and knowledge to bring an end to the life of a patient. For example, Buddhism urges people to refrain from deliberately killing another living being. Judeo-Christian beliefs also condemn suicide as an affront to the gift of life from the Creator.
Many health care professionals oppose this practice due to the possible harmful effects it may have on certain vulnerable people. This is often called the slippery slope argument, which is based on the fear that once society permits assisted suicide or euthanasia for terminally ill people it will start to affect other vulnerable people as well, such as the disabled and the elderly. The concern is that it might be used by people who feel unworthy to live because of their age or disability.
New Mexico ruled recently that a terminally ill patient has a constitutional right to receive help in dying. While state law declares it a felony to help a person commit suicide, the judge in the case ruled that the constitutional right of the terminally ill person overruled the state law. Therefore, it is unclear if this ruling applies throughout all of New Mexico or only to the county where the ruling was made.
About the Author:
You can visit fenregistration.org for more helpful information about Important Information About Assisted Suicide States.
No comments:
Post a Comment