New York bans physician-assisted suicide
Hannah Hurst, Staff Writer
Photo courtesy of Unsplash.com
Thursday, Sept. 7 the New York State Court of Appeals agreed 5-0 to ban the practice of physician-assisted suicide.
According to ABC News, three terminally ill patients originally presented the case back in 2015, claiming that the state of New York should make an exception to the law for individuals with incurable diseases.
In response to the pro-physician-assisted suicide-argument, the New York Court stated that patients still have the right to refuse possible life preserving medications if they chose.
“[This] violates the equal protection clause of the state constitution,” The Baptist Press described. Located in Nashville, Tenn. the Baptist Press serves as the authoritative news service for the Southern Baptist Convention.
Activists in favor of physician-assisted suicide plan to continue fighting against the law and present their case once more this upcoming January. Currently, only five states have maintained laws permitting doctors to grant terminally ill patients a prescription for life-ending drugs. These states include Vermont, Colorado, Oregon, California and Washington. Despite pressure from these other states, the New York court cited its goal to preserve their interests.
“[We] prohibit intentional killing and preserving life; preventing suicide; maintaining physician’s’ role as their patients’ healers; protecting vulnerable people from indifference, prejudice, psychological and financial pressure to end their lives; and avoiding a possible slide towards euthanasia,” the court confirmed.
North Greenville University’s Christian Studies professor Curtis Horn, who teaches a Christian ethics course, said, “In short, I support the decision of the NY Supreme Court.”
Horn explained the morality of physician-assisted suicide, “The Bible teaches that human life is made in the image of God and has an intrinsic and unique value in the creation. Thus, Christian morality seeks to protect innocent human life from conception to natural death.”
Horn emphasized the themes illustrated in Eccl. 3:1-2 and Heb. 9:27, which can both be used to portray suicide in a negative light.
Not only does physician-assisted suicide go against the teachings of the Bible but it also directly opposes the Hippocratic Oath, in which doctors state their purpose is to heal others. “Physician-assisted suicide is a sad departure from this long-honored tradition in the medical profession,” Horn added.
In addition to the biblical arguments against physician-assisted suicide, Horn adds three more solid arguments.
First, the misdiagnosis of terminal illnesses. Individuals who have been misdiagnosed might end their lives prematurely. Imagine the devastating news a family would receive too late that their loved one could have been properly treated and made a recovery. The same outcome could occur when doctors incorrectly predict a patient’s life expectancy.
Secondly, pain management and mercy. Activists promoting physician-assisted suicide promote the idea that death serves as a method to end the pain that comes along with terminal diseases yet, with today’s medical advances almost any pain can be treated with drugs.
Third, the “slippery slope” effect. Allowing for physician-assisted suicide will increase the number of reasons doctors can aid in ending a patient’s life beyond just terminal illnesses. Over time, doctors could be forced to shift how they measure “quality of life,” resulting in physician-assisted suicide unnecessarily being used for minor diseases.
For students who would like to further pursue the topic of physician-assisted suicide, Horn recommended the following resources:
1. “Why This Veteran With Terminal Brain Cancer Opposes Legalizing Assisted Suicide” article written by Katrina Willis.
2. “Compassion and Choice DENIED” video produced by The Center for Bioethics and Culture Network.
3. “5 facts about physician-assisted suicide in America” from The Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention.
