Raven Birk

10/12/14

Research Journal #5

Summary:  This book contains information that really only pertains to European countries, however it makes some really good points that are true or could be true for Americans as well.   The book gives us different scenarios and explains why said situation is an instance in which euthanasia and assisted suicide should be decriminalized.   It also gives us the overarching medical context for the legal situation about doctors assisting death.  His (John Griffiths) main argument is that euthanasia should be decriminalized, not necessarily with or without legislation, so that the practice is not definitely seen as either right or wrong but so that it’s just merely an option if needed.  

 

Synthesis:  This is different than previously read articles because instead of coming from the “completely just” opinions of the medical world, the doctors who probably wouldn’t assist in euthanasia, this book plays as a bit of a devil’s advocate in comparison.   Instead of talking about the doctor’s oath, which is a fairly universal concept, it is talking about the true desire of the patients and their wish to end their suffering through death so the perspective is completely different.   It also gives instances and requirements to fill for such wishes to be granted but that is the safest way because he claims that criminal law should not be the only thing to protect our lives.   There must be preventive laws as well which the doctor’s oath technically is.

 

Critical Thinking: If the doctor’s oath was revised or reinterpreted a bit so that euthanasia was decriminalized in the minds of new doctors, this could work perfectly for both patients and convicts.   If we allowed for doctors to realize that they can assist patients to end their lives as a way to end their suffering then what is really the difference between that and a capital punishment? Okay I have to admit that there are still a great deal of differences, but if the criminal’s actions were seen as a disease that only death could end the suffering of, wouldn’t it seem to be a little more morally aligned?  It is clear to me that if the death penalty is to continue by lethal injection then doctors need to be involved to prevent executioners from botching the injection and making the criminal’s last moments on earth be in excruciating pain and therefore leading up to cruel and usual punishment.   Either a switch of execution method or the decriminalization of euthanasia is greatly needed.   I still believe that the carbon monoxide mask is a wonderful and cost effective idea, however doctor participation would still be needed to put the convicts under anesthesia first before the mask is put on.  Basically, at this point the government realizes that doctors need to be involved and it is currently up to the medical field and the states to figure out whether or not decriminalizing euthanasia is morally upright for doctors or not.  

 

Questions and Planning:  I would like to figure out now if there are any plausible ways of implementing the decriminalization of assisted suicide into our culture.  I need to find out if there are any doctors in America who have considered decriminalizing this and what they believe it would take to alter the rest of the medical field.  I also would still like to find some sort of writing from a doctor who has participated in the lethal injections and see what they have to say about all of this and how they justify it morally.

 

Bioethics, Medical and Criminal Law: The Criminal Law and Bioethical Conflict: Walking the Tightrope edited by Amel Alghrani, Rebecca Bennett, and Suzanne Ost.  Chapter 2 “Euthanasia and assisted suicide should, when properly performed by a doctor in an appropriate case, should be decriminalized.”