It's astounding to me that only in Oregon is there a Death With Dignity, or medically assisted suicide law, in place. Polls in California show that 70% of respondents believe that terminally ill patients should have the option of ending their life through medically assisted suicide, yet that State's legislature shrank away from passing a bill.
In 35 states medically assisted suicide is by statute illegal. In 9 others it is illegal by common law. In another 5 it is neither legal nor illegal...which, for all practical purposes, would leave a doctor feeling pretty damned vulnerable to prosecution or lawsuit if he/she were to offer this service.
I am curious as to why this still seems to be such a provacative or controversial issue.
And I think Oregon's law, as good as it is, doesn't go far enough.
I touched upon this in a previous diary about my parents, and end of life issues. But what might a "Life with Dignity Law" look like?
What if you aren't terminal, but you are handed a prognosis by your doctor that is life altering nonetheless? Some degenerative and untreatable disease, that won't result in your death within the next year or two, but one which will rob you, inexorably, of your mobility, your senses, your independence, your ability to control your bowells or bladder, your ability to speak or see, or to remember the events and the people that have constituted your life's experience?
What if, upon receiving this prognosis from your doc, you mulled it over and decided that that wasn't the future you desired for yourself?
Once born, are we condemned to living life to it's natural end, regardless of the circumstances we find ourselves in? Is their no exit other than either the natural one or the illegal choice of self inflicted suicide? Whose interests are at stake here? Besides the individual in question, there may or may not be some family members...but what stake does society at large have in this decision?
Personally, I would be in favor of a "Life with Dignity Law", as I am already in favor of Oregon's Death With Dignity Law. But I'm not sure how to craft it...how broad it should be. Personally, I think as much discretion as possible should be given to the individual to define, for him or herself, just what constitutes "quality of life" on their own terms.
But I'd like to hear from the disabled community and the religious community for some perspective. Is this a decision that, by its very nature, is personal, or does the community at large and "the State" have a dog in this race.