Dr. Anthony Vigil
By Dr. Anthony Vigil
Since ancient times, some suffering, incurable patients have had the desire to end their lives, and some physicians could always be found who would comply with a patient’s request. Hippocrates (or other physicians) found this offensive and against the role of the physician as healer, and included the “no assisted suicide” clause in the Hippocratic oath.
For those confused by my use of the term “assisted suicide,”I will clarify. “Aid in dying” is what Mother Teresa did for thousands of dying patients in Calcutta, India for about 50 years. On the other hand, assisted suicide, according to the American Medical Association, occurs “when a physician facilitates a patient’s death by providing the necessary means and/or information to enable the patient to perform the life-ending act.”
Some assisted suicide proponents seem to think that we are more compassionate today, more enlightened or whatever, and so we should again broach the subject of physician assisted suicide; a practice held in check, for the most part, for a few thousand years.
I argue that the compassion bar has been raised no higher since ancient times. The technology to end a patient’s life has always been around. The Nazis raised the compassion question again in 1933, where we find a New York Times article titled: “Nazis Plan to Kill Incurable to End Pain; German Religious Groups Oppose Move.” Would any claim the Nazis raised the compassion bar here? (Actually, the Nazis required THREE physicians to agree on the patient being incurable, not just TWO, as the Oregon law dictates.)
So we see that there is nothing new under the sun with regards to the compassionate ending of life of incurable patients.
Using rational thought (and a look back at history) we can allow the assisted suicide movement to die (again) a natural death.
Dr. Anthony Vigil is a general surgeon practicing in New Mexico.
Opinions expressed in Health News Colorado represent the view of individual authors.
Firstly, a lot has changed in the debate about enabling terminally ill patients in general and regarding their choices at the end of their life. It is only a small group and a few people who think suffering before death is acceptable. Most people now believe that dying comfortably should be a goal for all. Medical providers and patients should work towards this. Control over time and manner of death is being accepted by more and more people.
There may be some details on which there is disagreement but most people regard unnecessary suffering before death as wrong.
The Aid in Dying movement has only one goal — the patient dies in comfort in a manner and at a time of their choosing when they are going to die in the near future anyway. For groups or individuals to try to stop this is not fair.
Secondly, more countries and more states in the U.S. are favoring laws to allow Aid in Dying.
Thirdly, to bring up Nazi Germany and the fear of the slippery slope is a tactic which serves no one but those with an agenda who push their personal beliefs and biases on others.