Euthanasia In the State of Oregon

Active voluntary euthanasia is defined as an intentional killing of a person on the grounds that the person has asked to be killed. With regards to our Oregon law it refers to the killing of a terminal patient who may otherwise expect a long, difficult, and particularly painful death. As such euthanasia has often been referred to as mercy killing.

Yale Kamisar puts forward a few arguments against euthanasia in general, one being the argument of the infallible doctor. No doctor can possibly be 100% correct in his diagnoses all of the time. As such, sometimes even the best doctors may misdiagnose benign illnesses as terminal. In short, we can never be certain that our doctors are correct in their diagnoses no matter how many we seek, there is always the probability however minuscule that they are wrong. I wonder if Kamisar would allow himself to read a book on the off chance that he may get a paper cut, should I turn on a lamp knowing full well that I either may electrocute myself or that the bulb may be burned out? Why even go to a doctor and receive treatment if we know that they might be wrong? If all the world lived their lives like the boy in the plastic bubble could life continue? Many of us could not live our lives if we were not take calculated chances every day and as such accepting treatment from a doctor after a diagnosis is something most of us would take advantage of on the off chance that he is right. Regardless of whether or not a doctor is right or not we still have the right to make the choice to seek treatment or not and as such it is up to the person in question to seek active voluntary euthanasia if he or she so desires it as specified in the Death with Dignity act.

Another argument that Kamisar makes is tha...

... middle of paper ...

... us go down? While not the most particularly forceful argument, I cannot but wonder at the hypocrisy that we in the modern age view this argument with. What about all the advances in science that have enabled us to cure diseases like polio or even leprosy? Are not these medical advances meddling in the role of nature? We feel that everyone is entitled to a long fruitful life, contrary to a so called state of nature where some people will die young, call it fate or bad luck, while others will live to a ripe old age. Is not such a way of thinking contrary to nature, are we not already playing God? In addition, perhaps euthanasia is an awful thing if we just let nature run its course but should we expect nature to pick up the slack where we have screwed up? Perhaps euthanasia is our punishment to restore the balance of justice for meddling with nature in the first place.