The P.O.L.S.T. paradigm incorporates the shared values of the health care community focusing on quality of life and the need to limit care at a certain point in disease progression. Although there are spaces and boxes to indicate a patient wants "full treatment," the thrust of the entire paradigm is limiting or eliminating treatment entirely at some point. It is specifically promoted to be used for patients who have at least one of the following "medical" conditions: These are exactly the same types of conditions where the pro-euthanasia groups want the ability to impose death through direct euthanasia, assisted-suicide or Third Way killing.
Photo provided by Flickr
"The Nazi's hid their racist, eugenic agenda behind theterm 'euthanasia,' terminating in secret the lives of 'undesirables.'It must never be forgotten that the Nazi 'euthanasia' programwas never euthanasia at all. That the Nazi's co-opted the termfor their own purposes should not obscure the fact that theirmotive was, from the very beginning, entirely different from thatof today's euthanasia proponents. The current euthanasia movementis anything but covert. The Hemlock Society and other supportersof the right to receive aid in dying have spent millions of dollarsto publicize their efforts. In this context, death is presentedas a positive alternative to pain and suffering, not a utilitariantool."
Proponentsof euthanasia also attempt to refute the slippery slope argumentin a variety of other ways. They contend that the current mechanismsused by the courts could easily prevent any slide toward involuntaryeuthanasia, that the currentpractice of passive euthanasia proves that the slope isn't allthat slippery since we haven't witnessed any massive killing programs,and that the example of how forced sterilization in the U.S. hasdiminished rather than increased, provides a more appropriateexample to rely on. Even Callahan (1989), a vocal opponent ofactive euthanasia, admits that the Nazi experience is not particularlyapplicable to the U.S. experience and that "Lives are notbeing shortened. They are steadily being lengthened, and particularlyfor those who are the most powerless: sick children and the veryold, the mentally and mentally retarded, the disabled and thedemented" (p. 4).
09/12/2012 · Read this essay on Euthanasia Ethical
Photo provided by Flickr
Americans have been strong defenders of the "rights" of citizens. So, the Euthanasia Society/for the Right to Die tapped into this "fight for rights." Ever since then, they've framed the debate in terms of a "right" to end life at the time of one's own choosing: "death on demand."
Euthanasia and Physician Assisted Suicide All sides to the issue
The first argument in support of this position claims thatcourt decisions about the interest of the state make the active/passive distinction irrelevant. According to Adams, et. al. (p.2034), "when considering the state's interest in preservingan individual's life in a suicide assistance case, a court shouldfind that, absent evidence of coercion or the patient's incompetence,the state's interest is negligible compared with the patient'sinterest." This logic would presumably apply to cases ofactive euthanasia as well.
RESEARCH LITERATURE: DEATH & DYING This is a large file
There is some doubt, however, about whether the Supreme Courtin its current configuration would be willing to extend a rightthat is not specifically stated in the Constitution to cover suchpractices (Gifford, p. 1576-77). In the Cruzan decision,the Court seemed quite willing to let questions of this naturebe settled by the states (Cruzan, p. 2842). As we have alreadyseen, the argument for privacy and autonomy has generated considerablesupport in the realm of passive euthanasia.