New York medical aid in dying act

The increase in the number of terminal diseases has prompted several arguments over how much independence a patient should have. Many cases have arisen in which people with terminal diseases have called for euthanasia in order to prevent incurring further care costs and to relieve their family of the burden of caring. Furthermore, the debate over the need for an act that would allow patients to opt to die safely stemmed from patients' need to be free of agonizing agony. As a result, the Dying Act gained attention in May 2016, when campaigners brought the issue before the New York State Assembly. In essence, the bill allows terminally ill patients to make decisions their own on how medics can terminate their treatment or hasten their death.

Literature Review

\t

Biggs (2000)

in his book, Euthanasia, Death with Dignity and the Law foresaw a future when the terminally ill patients will receive respect from those nursing them and accord them peaceful death. In the book, the author challenges the opposing forces as being shortsighted and having little knowledge on what it means to have a chronic illness. Biggs says that it will only be fair when the society embraces the freedom to die. The writer philosophizes on the concept of death and argues that euthanasia is not a form of suicide but rather an acceptance of the impending fate. \t

Similarly, Cavan (2000)

in his writing, Euthanasia: The Debate over the Right to Die, follows a philosophical path before diverging into the legal perspective. In the book, the author discusses many reasons why one should be allowed to die. He uses case studies of individuals groaning in pain as their families decry the high cost of medication and explains that the victim should be allowed to decide what should be done. Hence, if the patients chose to be left to die, those around them should perceive the choice as a legally right decision and allow the patient to escape pain. \t

On his part, Emanuel (1998)

elaborates on the economic factors that necessitate the support of voluntary dying in cases of terminal illnesses. In his book, Regulating how we Die: The Ethical, Medical, and Legal Issues, Surrounding Physician-assisted Suicide the scholar insinuates that economic challenges such as The Great Depression pushed many victims to choose to die rather than subjecting their families to evitable budgets. He continues to discuss the ethics surrounding euthanasia where he mentions that personal liberty is the determinant force. Individuals should not force the sick to stay around when their conditions deprive them the joy of living. Further, the scholar explains that medics, bestowed with power to treat, should guide the victims' families in understanding the complexity of the health of their relatives.

Policy Analysis

\tThe Dying Act (2017) offers the New Yorkers an opportunity to make healthcare decisions during their final stages when they are struggling with a terminal illness (Karger, Stoesz & Karger, 1999). The patients can choose to have their lives terminated by a physician. Ideally, the bill was sponsored by Senator Diane Savino alongside Amy Paulin, the Assembly Member of D-Westchester. Their proposal received support from many like-minded leaders, giving an opportunity to terminally ill patients. However, many religious leaders especially the staunch Catholics continue to reject the bill arguing that it is equivalent to manslaughter. It follows that the families of the victims have to comply with the law and allow them to die. Considerably, they will not be an easy task because some families might consider that their patients do not have the right mental health to make such decisions. Hence, there might be disagreements as to how the law should be executed.

Discussion and Conclusion

\tThe policy began in 2016 when the proponents presented it before the New York Assembly (Karger, Stoesz & Karger, 1999). Many discussions emerged with the religious community maintaining that the bill had no place in the society. The criticism leaned on the perception that the voluntary dying was equivalent to manslaughter because the sick have no volition to make a decision of taking their lives away. In the 2017, the supporters updated the Medical Aid in Dying Act by redefining the term "capacity," to mean mentally healthy terminally ill grownups who can consult medics and request aid to faster dying. It follows that many terminally ill patients will opt to be granted the opportunity of seeking faster death. At the same time, there will be possible disagreements among family members of the affected patients who might blame themselves when patients make such decisions. \tHowever, the policy will introduce the dilemma of what it means to have "mental capacity" to decide to take away your life. Some people would say that a person with terminal illness is not mentally fit. As a result, many cases will emerge challenging the decisions of many patients. Moreover, terminating the life of a person with chronic illness will introduce another challenge. For instance, withdrawal service provision may subject the patient to pain. Using drugs to end life may also be controversial in that critics will equate it to deliberate killing of a person by medics. Needless to say, it will be ironical for doctors to assist in ending lives they should be protecting. The ethical issue will emerge and doctors will carry the blame for admitting that they are incapable of restoring health.

References

Top of Form
Bottom of Form
Top of Form
Bottom of Form
Top of Form
Bottom of Form
Top of Form
Bottom of Form
Top of Form
Biggs, H. (2000). Euthanasia, Death with Dignity and the Law. Oxford: Hart.
Cavan, S. (2000). Euthanasia: The Debate over the Right to Die. New York: Rosen Pub. Group.
Emanuel, L. L. (1998). Regulating how we die: The Ethical, Medical, and Legal Issues Surrounding Physician-assisted Suicide. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.
Karger, H. J., Stoesz, D., & Karger, H. J. (1999). Social welfare policy and the Internet, 1999 update: A supplement to American social welfare policy : a pluralist approach. New York: Addison Wesley Longman.
Bottom of Form
Top of Form
Bottom of Form