TAW122
Emissary of the right to die.
- Aug 30, 2018
- 6,899
As far an obligation, it's a bit of a grey area, though in my opinion, if it comes with patient autonomy and honoring patient wishes in the end (reasonable standards, NOT the indefinite loop of endless treatments, goalpost shifting, and deception, false hope, lies, etc.), then it would make sense.
More specifically, suppose an otherwise relatively healthy individual (maybe in their young adult age, be it 20's or 30's, maybe even middle age, like mid 40's or 50's) with not a lot of impediment to their day to day ADL (Activities of Daily Living), but their mentally suffering immensely (and while it is murky and harder to quantify than say a physical ailment - where it is more observable and measurable), suppose they put in a request/application for medically assisted death. I think if the provider or the program says has a waiting period, requires some documentation that the person has tried some therapies and medications (attempts to fix their situation) and with no improvement say after a year or so, then is given the green light and throughout the process, everything is documented and reaffirmed (to ensure the patient did NOT change their mind) and then finally given the green light, it would actually help the person be more at peace. Perhaps it may even allow a person to continue living a bit longer, knowing that their continued sentience is of their choice and not something that is imposed and required of them (which is sadly the reality we live in, in present day).
Finally, I do agree that patients should NOT be forced to try medication and therapy against their will, as that has more harm than good overall. A patient wanting to be better because they want to would yield better outcomes than one who is compelled to do so by the government, their peers, or even some institution or medical establishment. My example I gave was something along the lines of reasonable compromise, concession, and something that I think would act as a safeguard against impulsive decisions, while still honoring the bodily autonomy of the individual.
More specifically, suppose an otherwise relatively healthy individual (maybe in their young adult age, be it 20's or 30's, maybe even middle age, like mid 40's or 50's) with not a lot of impediment to their day to day ADL (Activities of Daily Living), but their mentally suffering immensely (and while it is murky and harder to quantify than say a physical ailment - where it is more observable and measurable), suppose they put in a request/application for medically assisted death. I think if the provider or the program says has a waiting period, requires some documentation that the person has tried some therapies and medications (attempts to fix their situation) and with no improvement say after a year or so, then is given the green light and throughout the process, everything is documented and reaffirmed (to ensure the patient did NOT change their mind) and then finally given the green light, it would actually help the person be more at peace. Perhaps it may even allow a person to continue living a bit longer, knowing that their continued sentience is of their choice and not something that is imposed and required of them (which is sadly the reality we live in, in present day).
Finally, I do agree that patients should NOT be forced to try medication and therapy against their will, as that has more harm than good overall. A patient wanting to be better because they want to would yield better outcomes than one who is compelled to do so by the government, their peers, or even some institution or medical establishment. My example I gave was something along the lines of reasonable compromise, concession, and something that I think would act as a safeguard against impulsive decisions, while still honoring the bodily autonomy of the individual.
