An American dilemma facing the nation once again has come to the forefront of the medical community in Maryland’s petition to allow doctor assisted suicide, will Maryland become the 6th state of the union to allow such a practice?
In the article “Maryland house committee to hear testimony for End of Life Options” by Ovetta Wiggins in the Washington post on February 9th we can see an excellent example of the Value-conflict’s moral typology. Maryland tried to pass the bill last year under the name The Death with Dignity Act which failed to pass. This year the Death with Dignity Act was renamed The End of Life Options bill as well as the addition of some new conditions to the bill to alleviate some concerns of the states law makers. The newly added conditions are as follows,
1. There would be a private consultation between the patient and their doctor to insure that doctor assisted suicide option is truly what the patients wants of their own free will (i.e. outside influences that could have affected the patients medical choices)
2. The state of Maryland would have to set up a statewide database to record and track the number of patient doctor assisted suicide’s preformed in Maryland.
3. The patient must have 6 or less months to live and be physically capable of taking the doctor prescribed medication.
At the forefront of Maryland’s doctor assisted suicide is the concern pertaining to the intellectually/developmental disabled citizens living in Maryland. If Maryland effectively passes then the mentally disabled citizens of Maryland would have access as well to doctor assisted suicide but the troubling question is could/can a mentally disabled patient able to make such a serious medical decision? As of now the mentally disabled community of Maryland along with the Catholic Church stand in stern opposition to the End of Life Options Bill. The mentally disabled community sites a previous history of mentally disabled people having access to proper medical care due to their perceived lesser value in society as its chief reason for its objection.
A great deal of controversy arises from the simple wording, instead of calling it assisted suicide it should be referred to as doctor assisted Euthanasia.The reason for this is to combat the negative stigma surrounding the word suicide. The religious would tell you suicide is a damnable sin, law enforcement will tell you suicide is illegal and the public as a whole tells you growing up as well as an adult that suicide is just plain wrong and should be looked down upon. The crux of the doctor assisted suicide debate lies in the use and definition of the word suicide. That is to say for the average person suicide is a permanent solution for a temporary problem like drug addiction or bi polar depression which can be treated with rehab, medications and therapy.
But when one talks about doctor assisted suicide its an entirely different affair. A patient who is diagnosed with a terminal disease (example being Aids,MS or Cancer Etc.) its effectively a death sentence, the afflicted patient has absolutely no chance of recovering from said disease. Not only that but with 6 or less months to live its safe to say the patient has already suffered immensely physically,emotionally and mentally already.
The question at hand that we must ask ourselves is if the personal values/judgements of the majority should deny individuals the right to end their pain and suffering by choosing doctor assisted suicide.
Skip to content
my thoughts on everything