Journal 2

Alex Marr

Journal #2

The second article I used during my exploration was "Right to Die" and was found in the Dictionary of American History.  The article begins by explaining defining what the right to die really is, that is "the expression conventionally used to refer to situations in which issues concerning physician-assisted suicide typically arise" (Weisbrod).  The article then goes on to explain that most right to die issues and controversies happen when the decision must be made to either assist a patient in dying or sustain them on life support indefinitely.  It is then discussed how life support has changed, with newer technology and equipment increasing the complications of making the decision to end one's life.  The article then presents a real life example, showing a Supreme Court case that resulted in a ruling that there was no protected right to die.  The article concludes by debating whether family judgment is sufficient to speak for the patient.

The first article I read mainly focused on the basics of life support and the growing role of bioethicists in hospitals and their importance in the decision making process.  However, this article relates more to my argument that I plan to make in my paper about who gets to make the decision to withdraw life support and what factors go into making the decision.  Both of the articles have given firm, real life evidence, citing Supreme Court cases.  However, this article’s case was more about whether there is a protected right to die.  This article also talks more about who gets to make the decision to withdraw life support rather than just how the process might be handled.

This article has made me realize the many different rights and issues with the withdrawal of life support for a patient.  The article made me realize that it is not just a simple decision that should be made by a doctor or close family, but it is complex one that requires a lot of time and thinking as the issue relates to state law.  Another problem this article made me contemplate is the issue of whether or not family has a sufficient amount of judgment and can make decisions for their patient.  It makes me wonder if families should start talking about it in the present so that they can prevent future conflicts should they occur.  The article also made me realize the role of the state law in end of life actions and how one can get in some serious trouble if they don’t follow the right process.  However, I’m still wondering about the exact process and thinking that takes place during life support, between both doctors and families.  While it is true that families should have a significant impact on the decision, doctors still make the ultimate call and take the blame for any state laws that are broken.

After reading this article, I am still left with many questions and ideas that are not closed.  Why is it that there is no exact process for how an end of life decision is made?  How big of an impact is the role of the state law in these decisions?  I still believe the family should have a large impact in the decision making process, but should this topic be talked about beforehand so families know what decision to make?  It can put a lot of pressure on the family if they are unsure what the patient actually wants.  In the future, I am hoping I can find some closure to the many questions I still have.