The
Vermont Ethics Network does not have a position on Physician
Assisted Suicide. Rather these materials are presented to help
the people of Vermont engage in a dialogue about this important
ethical issue.
|
Definition
of Terms
Some Questions
Pros & Cons |
Print
Worksheet
Print
Definitions
Other
Web Resources
|
H-318
(VT House Bill)
S-112
(VT Senate Bill)
The
Oregon Model
|
| VEN hopes to help people come
together to share their values and beliefs and to re-examine
the issues and positions in a dialogue format that will allow
an analysis of the underlying concerns about dying and choices |
Send
Us Your Comments
|
Pros & Cons -Here
are several key points from the perspective of proponents
and opponents of physician assisted suicide (PAS), based
upon the Oregon model.
Proponents would say: |
- PAS provides another option for people
who want to have more control of their dying.
- PAS can be used by terminally ill persons
whose pain or other symptoms are not otherwise controlled.
- PAS in an open and regulated system
can provide the reassurance that the prescribed medication
will have the desired effect.
- PAS will prevent the isolation and guilt
attendant upon other forms of suicide by some terminal
patients who may now be using other means (e.g. firearms,
voluntary refusal of food and fluids (VRFF), etc.)
- Having the PAS option available will
be a means of opening dialogue with family and health care
professionals about other options such as Hospice and palliative
care alternatives.
- The experience of having PAS available
in the State of Oregon has not diverted people away from
Hospice and other alternatives and has not lead to a flood
of people opting for this means of ending their lives
|
Opponents would say:
|
|
|
- PAS
is a basic contradiction to the Oath taken by Physicians
to heal and minister to the sick and
to “first, do no harm.”
- The taking of a human life through PAS
is wrong, even when suffering and quality of life and patient
wishes are taken into consideration. Suicide is illegal
and morally wrong.
- The
introduction of PAS for the terminally ill will start
a slide down the “slippery slope” to
euthanasia (direct killing) of those who cannot take their
own lives and will probably lead to being applied to seriously
chronically ill and disabled individuals who are not “dying”.
- Growth and development can occur even
in the most desperate of circumstances, including healing
of relationships and a spiritual understanding of the meaning
of suffering as a part of the natural dying process.
- Health care professionals, families
and other caregivers will not give proper attention to
pain control and hospice if they see PAS as a viable alternative.
- The respect and trust of physicians
in general will be harmed if they are seen as ready to
assist in suicide by their patients
|
| Some Questions
to Help You Evaluate How You Feel : |
|
- What concerns on either side of this
debate have the most weight for you?
- If
you were to characterize your own position as “for” or “against,” what
is the most persuasive single point raised by people who
hold the opposite position?
- What are some areas of common ground
identified in this discussion?
- Are PAS and related matters ones
that can or should be dealt with through legislation
and/or regulation?
|
| Other Web Resources |
|
|
Death
With Dignity Vermont (proponents) www.deathwithdignityvermont.org
Vermont Alliance for Ethical Health Care (opponents) www.vaeh.org
The Vermont Legislature (for listing of H318 and S112) www.leg.state.vt.us
The Oregon Law www.dhs.state.or.us/publichealth/chs/pas/pas.cfm
|
Send
Us Your Comments - Questions
|
