Suicide and Euthanasia

Addressing the legalization of physician assisted suicide is complex. We really need to remove the term “suicide” and replace it with euthanasia. By doing so, it redirects the culpability of the physician. Why should it be considered a humane practice in regards to animals, but considered inhumane when practiced on individuals? It is imperative to note patient directed suicide is often the underlying factor in the exploration of Euthanasia. Their Hippocratic Oath prevents physicians from openly discussing the possibilities of euthanasia with terminally ill or disabled patients (physically or mentally), after all treatments have been explored. This violation of the Hippocratic Oath must be reconsidered and amended, much like the inclusion of cutting of flesh and women in practice in medicine. What set of circumstance needs to transpire to provoke change? The option to provide legal euthanasia does not come without controversy. Who will implement patient / physician safeguards? Will it be Legislature, healthcare, or the hospitals? Who will measure to ensure socio economic, age or mentally ill (cognitive ability) discrimination is not a factor. How and who determine such guidelines? Who should sit on such boards? To safeguard both parties, a non-partisan, non-affiliated board must be represented. Laws as they are written, reflect the time, ideas and knowledge present during that period. When do we exercise contemporary perspective to reflect modern concerns? Amendments to laws to reflect contemporary medicine, ideas and subsequent knowledge benefit not only physicians but the population they serve. Medicine has become a competition in gains, the classic ideas of who, what, why and how much of modern day. Pharmaceutical companies and lobbyists have little respect for the patient or physician when aggressively pursuing their