Essay On Death With Dignity Act

Contemporary Policy Problem: Death with Dignity Act

Depending on the state, families who may have terminally-ill loved ones may have discussed the option of a physician-assisted death. In 1994, Oregon was the first state that enacted the Death with Dignity Act, which “[allows] terminally ill adults to self-administer lethal doses of medication prescribed by physicians” (Karaim, 2013, p. 452). Until about 2013, Oregon has been the only state with this statute. Since then, four other states and Washington, D.C., have enacted similar legislation: End of Life Option Act (2016) in California; End of Life Option Act (2016) in Colorado; Death with Dignity Act (2017) in the District of Columbia; Patient Choice and Control at the End of Life Act (2013)

With the forty-five other states that do not permit physician-assisted suicide, it becomes a question of whether or not to make the Death with Dignity Act nationally permissible, to continue to allow the states to decide, or to abolish the act altogether. Those in favor of the act would argue that it is the terminally ill persons right to decide when to meet unavoidable death instead of living the final days in agonizing pain; on the other hand, those who oppose the act believe that it poses a threat to vulnerable elderly and disabled people who may be manipulated or coerced to make the decision to end their life (Karaim, 2013, p. 452). Between these two arguments, it becomes difficult for state legislatures to make a decision while considering of all the concerns and possible issues. However, although I am not an expert in the field of law and health, I have created three

For example, determining the perceived level of mentally competency can vary depending on the doctor involved in the situation. If a patient is able to write or communicate through technology but is not able to verbally communicate and vice versa; does that mean they are not mentally competent? Also, what happens if a patient had decided to go through with the process one day, but then becomes unconscious the next day? Would this mean that the physician could still carry out his patients wishes since the decision was made while being awake, or does can the physician not do anything because of the current state of the patient not being mentally competent? Overall, both situations present a case where the guideline is too vague in defining what mentally competent truly stands for. Therefore, it could lead to situations where allowing physician-assisted suicide is not consistent with other cases. The regulations also fail to determine if an outside party can make the decision in cases where the patient is not able to. As a result of not stating this matter, it becomes unclear of whether people such as health providers can implement the physician-assisted