Should the “Right to Die” Be Constitutional?
The process of dying in the U.S. significantly changed during 20th century. In many cases modern medical technologies allow deciding when, where and how patient dies. However, in some of them, prolongation of treatment is seen as “merely prolonging of dying process” which many patients refuse to accept (Wornshop 1997). Considering that many ethical issues appear. Is it ethical for doctors to assist patients in basically ending their life? Who is to decide whether a patient wants to prolong painful treatment if he is unconscious and unable to decide himself? Does accepting “right to die” endanger “right to live”? And, finally, how the procedure of “assisted suicide” should be regulated legislatively?
Currently, there are many initiatives to include “the right to die” to the Constitution. Promoters of these actions argue that every person should be able to decide whether to prolong his/her existence under terminal illness and suffering from pain (Wornshop, 1992). They consider that “the right to die” is a logical extension of the “right to live”. Now “assisted suicide” or euthanasia is allowed in four states – Oregon, Washington, Montana, and Vermont. This matter is traditionally regulated by the state governments. However, the ethical considerations, the imperfection of the current system of patients’ will execution and religious issues suggest that this right should be included to federal jurisdiction and regarded as a civil right.One of the main reasoning used by opponents of “the right to die” is ethical issues.
They often cite the earliest source of medical ethics the Hippocratic Oath which states that “If any shall ask of me a drug to produce death, I shall not give it” (Jost 2005 430). They also argue that doctors helping their patients to end their lives undermine a role of doctor as a healer (Karaim, 2013 456). This opinion does not include the fact that the main role of the doctor is to help. It is not just in healing, but also to help patients to sustain the best living conditions possible. It also changes the objective from patients to the doctors’ personal believes of how they should be perceived by the general public. If the doctors are not able to help, they should “switch their objective to relieving suffering in accordance with the patients’ wishes” (Karaim, 2013 456). It should also be considered that if a patient is terminally ill he does not choose between life and death, he chooses between long and painful or fast and merciful death. Thus, while physician technically does give a patient a drug which causes death, the lethal issue is inevitable in any case.
Therefore, the Hippocratic oath is not applicable. Public opinion polls show that a majority of American agree with that. 72 percent of Americans consider doctors should be allowed to end patient’s life by some painless means if the patient requests it and his decease cannot be cured (Jost 2005 430). Civil rights and liberties are …
