“I will prescribe regimens for the good of my patients according to my ability and my judgment and never do harm to anyone…To please no one will I prescribe a deadly drug nor give advice which may cause his death.” – The Hippocratic Oath. It has long been held by tradition that doctors were here to help, to cure, to aid—not to harm or hinder in any way. But that has become legend, and may soon become myth—will things that should not be forgotten now become lost? Can we no longer trust doctors to do good and not ill? For that matter, are they even doctors now, or are they pretending to be God, determining who can live and who can die?
“It is unfortunate that a majority of the court stripped the federal government of an important safeguard to ensure that federally controlled narcotics could not be used by licensed physicians to take the life of a patient who wants to commit suicide. This is a disturbing and dangerous decision that can only lessen the value of protecting human life.” – Jay Sekulow 1
Perhaps Mr. Sekulow has hit the proverbial nail on the head with his statement. According to Oregon law, if the patient is 18 or older, has an illness that should lead to death within six months and can communicate their wishes about healthcare, a doctor may prescribe lethal amounts of narcotics. The Supreme Court’s decision upheld an earlier ruling that prevented the federal government from prosecuting doctor’s who prescribed overdoses of narcotics.
In 2001, John Ashcroft, then-Attourney General, declared that euthanasia, or physician-assisted suicide, was not a “legitimate medical purpose” and warned that those who did would have their license to prescribe federally controlled drugs under the Controlled Substances Act revoked.
Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia agreed with this in his dissent on the Supreme Court decision. He said, “If the term ‘legitimate medical purpose’ has any meaning, it surely excludes the prescription of drugs to produce death.”
However, Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy disagreed with Ashcroft’s statement. He declared, “[A]uthority claimed by the Attorney General is both beyond his expertise and incongruous with the statutory purposes and design.” But this begs the question…is it within the Supreme Court’s expertise?
Perhaps though, in the end we need to take to heart what Matthew D. Staver, the President of Liberty Counsel said. “When a physician participates in a person’s suicide by administering controlled substances, the line between healer and executioner is blurred, and the sanctity of life is lost. America should not become like Sweden, where patients wonder whether a physician with a syringe brings life or death.”
1 http://www.cnsnews.com/news/viewstory.asp?Page=%5CNation%5Carchive%5C200601%5CNAT20060117b.html
0 Responses to “Editorial: Primum Non Nocere”