Assisted Suicide.
Publié le 10/05/2013
Extrait du document
«
regardless of the fairness of the procedures used (substantive due process).
In the Glucksberg case, the Court indicated that the liberty interest protected by the 14th Amendment does not encompass the right to determine the timing and manner of one’s own death.
The Court’s decision means that each state may determine whetheror not to prohibit or permit (and otherwise regulate) assisted suicide.
In 2006 the Court upheld Oregon’s law permitting physician-assisted suicide.
In a 6-to-3 decision, the Court rejected an attempt by the administration of PresidentGeorge W.
Bush to bar doctors from helping terminally ill patients die by threatening to prosecute them under the Controlled Substances Act of 1970.
In the majorityopinion written by Justice Anthony Kennedy, the Court ruled that the federal government did not have the right to overrule Oregon voters.
Canada does not allow assisted suicide and the Supreme Court of Canada has concluded that Canada’s ban is not unconstitutional.
In 1993 Sue Rodriguez, a 42-year-old woman diagnosed with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (Lou Gehrig’s disease), an incurable illness, petitioned the court to allow her the option of physician-assistedsuicide.
Rodriguez argued that the statutory prohibition of assisted suicide violated the rights of personal liberty and autonomy guaranteed by the Canadian Charter ofRights and Freedoms.
In a 5 to 4 decision, the Canadian Supreme Court rejected Rodriguez’s challenge to the criminal code.
The court ruled that society’s interest inpreserving life and protecting those who are vulnerable outweighed the interests of the individual in cases of assisted suicide.
However, several judges suggested intheir opinions that the laws in Canada might need reform in order to provide help to patients like Rodriguez.
(In early 1994 Rodriguez killed herself with the assistanceof an anonymous physician.)
B Legislation
Supporters of assisted suicide have also attempted to enact laws permitting and regulating the practice.
In 2001 The Netherlands became the first country to legalizeassisted suicide and active euthanasia.
Under the Dutch law, physicians who perform euthanasia or assist in a patient’s suicide must follow strict guidelines: The patientmust make a voluntary, stable request to die and have a clear understanding of his or her condition and prognosis; the physician must carefully review the patient’scondition; the patient must be suffering unbearably with no hope of improvement; and a second physician must be consulted and must agree with the decision to helpthe patient die.
In the United States, only one state, Oregon, has adopted a law specifically allowing physician-assisted suicide.
In November 1994 voters in Oregon approved a ballotmeasure adopting the Death with Dignity Act, which authorized physicians to prescribe lethal doses of medication for terminally ill patients.
However, opponents ofassisted suicide challenged the constitutionality of the law and prevented its enforcement.
In 1997, after the U.S.
Supreme Court determined that the states have theauthority to regulate this issue, the voters of Oregon again approved the act.
In 1998 voters in Maine and Michigan rejected laws that would have legalized assistedsuicide.
Under the provisions of Oregon’s Death with Dignity Act, physicians are legally allowed to hasten the death of a patient who has been declared terminally ill by twophysicians and who wishes to escape unbearable suffering.
The patient must have requested a prescription for lethal drugs three times (one of these requests must bemade in writing).
The two verbal requests must be separated by at least 15 days.
Contrary to predictions by opponents of assisted suicide, implementation of the lawdid not result in a flood of assisted suicides.
By the end of 2005, more than 200 people had taken lethal drugs obtained through a physician since the law took effect in1997.
V ETHICAL ISSUES
The fundamental ethical issue regarding assisted suicide is whether acts by physicians that help others kill themselves (or let others die) can be morally justified, notwhether these acts should be legalized.
Those who believe assisted suicide is morally prohibited maintain that it is impermissible for a doctor to kill a patient and that adefensible distinction exists between killing a person and letting a person die.
However, this distinction has proved difficult to define and explain precisely.
Those whosupport assisted suicide maintain that any distinction between killing a person and letting a person die that may exist is actually irrelevant to the question of whetherassisted suicide can be justified.
Advocates of assisted suicide note that it is generally agreed that killing is justified under some conditions—for example, in cases ofself-defense.
Therefore, they argue, correctly applying the label “killing” or the label “letting die” to a set of events does not, by itself, indicate whether an action isacceptable or unacceptable.
Instead, supporters argue, rightness and wrongness depend on the justification underlying the action.
Medical ethicists agree that physicians may forgo treatment when a patient or the patient’s authorized representative refuses treatment.
Thus, valid refusals justifyphysicians to “allow” a patient to die when the patient could be kept alive with treatment.
Supporters of assisted suicide believe that some acts of assisting in bringingabout death can be framed similarly to refusals of treatment.
Such actions could then, in principle, be justified by a request of the patient.
They contend that a patient’srequest for a fatal medication is analogous to a patient’s refusal of life-sustaining medication.
However, the traditional view in professional medical ethics is that arequest for assistance in dying by a competent patient does not have the same authority and obligatory force in law and morality that a valid refusal of treatment has.Therefore, such a request does not justify an action of physician-assisted suicide.
Major medical professional organizations—including the American Medical Association (AMA) and the Canadian Medical Association (CMA)—maintain that physician-assisted suicide is not justified by a patient’s request under any circumstance.
However, this conclusion is controversial.
Others believe that whether physicians areeither morally permitted or morally required to honor requests for direct assistance that will lead to death depends on the nature of the request and the nature of thepatient-physician relationship.
One of the most critical issues underlying the question of justified killing in medicine is whether the act of assisting persons in bringing about their deaths causes them aloss or, rather, provides a benefit.
If a person chooses death and sees that event as a personal benefit, then helping that person bring about death may neither harmnor wrong the person and may provide a benefit or at least fulfill the person’s last important goal.
On the one hand, avoidance of intentionally causing the death ofpatients is a deep and primitive restraint encouraged by many reservations that society has long had about killing innocent persons.
To change this perspective wouldseem to be sweeping and dangerous.
Opponents of assisted suicide fear that doctors will become less committed to saving lives, that families may respond to financialpressures by subtly encouraging suicide, and that limitations in the resources of the health-care system might dictate decisions of life and death.
On the other hand,some people question whether physicians should be restricted by law and morality if they may benefit patients in ways other than just by healing and providingnoncurative pain relief.
Contributed By:Tom L.
BeauchampMicrosoft ® Encarta ® 2009. © 1993-2008 Microsoft Corporation.
All rights reserved..
»
↓↓↓ APERÇU DU DOCUMENT ↓↓↓
Liens utiles
- BARRÈS, DURKHEIM ET LE SUICIDE
- L'HISTORIEN ET LA QUESTION DU SUICIDE
- SUICIDE (LE), 1897. Émile Durkheim (résumé & analyse)
- Le point de départ de Camus est le suicide.
- SUICIDE (Le). d’Émile Durkheim (Résumé et analyse)