To no one rational’s surprise, a study confirms that those few Oregon patients (400 over 10 years) who chose legal physician assisted suicide in case of terminal illness had a better quality of death than those who didn’t. Sadly because those attacking it aren’t rational, this won’t end the debate–but if you’re terminally ill you have better choices in Oregon (and Washington & Switzerland).
Who’s attacking it? I don’t think I have read or seen a single article even addressing the law in Oregon…or is the anonymous author trying to lump this in with some other debate?
To no one rational’s surprise is right, and Washington’s law is off to a similar start as its first year in operation closes. Nor is there a “slippery slope” or “culture of death” that goes along with, despite the opponents’ claims. There is also no way that this issue should be conflated with the debate over abortion. Here we have the informed consent of the very person whose life is at stake.
As a result, all states need such laws, because the lack of them forces families into dignity-destroying illegal activities to fulfill what many see as a moral duty to end suffering. For a close-up, realistic look at this in a contemporary California context, see the new novel What You Wish For by Bill Pieper on Amazon.