Why Euthanasia? Why Doctor-Assisted Suicide? Why Now? :: Euthanasia Physician Assisted Suicide

Why Euthanasia? Why Now?      Ã‚   Americans wonder why the big push for legalizing euthanasia and assisted suicide. After thousands of years of considering such practices sinful and illegal, why the vocal effort at changing policy? This paper will look closely at how and why the new pro-euthanasia/assisted suicide attitude is sweeping around the world.    The 89 year old woman died of dehydration starvation after six days without food and fluids, despite evidence that she had repeatedly asked for water. A scene from a drought-stricken Third World country or Nazi Germany? No. Ella Bathurst died October 28, 1984 at a prestigious Midwestem hospital in the USA. Mrs. Bathurst had been living alone until she fell and fractured her hip. She was treated at the hospital and then she was transferred to a nursing home. When she developed problems in swallowing, she was transferred back to the hospital for rehydration therapy. After three days, at the insistence of Mrs. Bathurst's daughter, the IV was discontinued and food and fluids were withheld. According to hospital records, Mrs. Bathurst was "alert and responsive" most of the time, yet she was not consulted regarding the withdrawal of food and water. (Gula)    Similar cases are occurring more frequently as a traditional medical standard - the presumption to treat -- is being eroded. Under common law, competent patients are able to refuse treatment, provided the decision is reasonable and based on sufficient information for informed consent. In the case of an incompetent or comatose patient, the usual method of determining treatment was for the physicians involved in the case to discuss treatment options with the family of the patient. It was presumed that the patient would want beneficial treatment and would not want to die of dehydration and starvation. Likewise, it was presumed that the family would want the best care for the patient. Physicians themselves swore to the Hippocratic Oath: "First, do no harm."    Unfortunately, this presumption in favor of treatment is being eroded in our society. Generally, through five means: the medical profession, pro-euthanasia organizations, state legislation, court opinions, and the media: 1. As an indication of where segments of the medical profession are heading, in March 1986 the judicial council of the American Medical Association (AMA) ruled that it is ethical for physicians to withhold "all means of life-prolonging treatment" from people in "irreversible" comas even if death is not imminent. Why Euthanasia? Why Doctor-Assisted Suicide? Why Now? :: Euthanasia Physician Assisted Suicide Why Euthanasia? Why Now?      Ã‚   Americans wonder why the big push for legalizing euthanasia and assisted suicide. After thousands of years of considering such practices sinful and illegal, why the vocal effort at changing policy? This paper will look closely at how and why the new pro-euthanasia/assisted suicide attitude is sweeping around the world.    The 89 year old woman died of dehydration starvation after six days without food and fluids, despite evidence that she had repeatedly asked for water. A scene from a drought-stricken Third World country or Nazi Germany? No. Ella Bathurst died October 28, 1984 at a prestigious Midwestem hospital in the USA. Mrs. Bathurst had been living alone until she fell and fractured her hip. She was treated at the hospital and then she was transferred to a nursing home. When she developed problems in swallowing, she was transferred back to the hospital for rehydration therapy. After three days, at the insistence of Mrs. Bathurst's daughter, the IV was discontinued and food and fluids were withheld. According to hospital records, Mrs. Bathurst was "alert and responsive" most of the time, yet she was not consulted regarding the withdrawal of food and water. (Gula)    Similar cases are occurring more frequently as a traditional medical standard - the presumption to treat -- is being eroded. Under common law, competent patients are able to refuse treatment, provided the decision is reasonable and based on sufficient information for informed consent. In the case of an incompetent or comatose patient, the usual method of determining treatment was for the physicians involved in the case to discuss treatment options with the family of the patient. It was presumed that the patient would want beneficial treatment and would not want to die of dehydration and starvation. Likewise, it was presumed that the family would want the best care for the patient. Physicians themselves swore to the Hippocratic Oath: "First, do no harm."    Unfortunately, this presumption in favor of treatment is being eroded in our society. Generally, through five means: the medical profession, pro-euthanasia organizations, state legislation, court opinions, and the media: 1. As an indication of where segments of the medical profession are heading, in March 1986 the judicial council of the American Medical Association (AMA) ruled that it is ethical for physicians to withhold "all means of life-prolonging treatment" from people in "irreversible" comas even if death is not imminent.