write in 3-5 sentences response to this post . RE: Sect. 1 Week 13 DQ 11: House
ID: 3458379 • Letter: W
Question
write in 3-5 sentences response to this post .
RE: Sect. 1 Week 13 DQ 11: House Bill 54
COLLAPSE
(4a) I generally support this bill, but I would like some language to be amended.
"17 (14) "terminal disease" means an incurable and irreversible disease
18 that has been medically confirmed and that will, within reasonable medical judgment,
19 produce death within six months;"
I recommend six months to be amended to one year. I propose this amendment pursuant to Sec. 13.55.070. Counseling referral. Due to the encumbered state of the Alaska mental health resources, significant waiting periods may exist and adequate time is needed to allow for proper examination and evaluation. Amending the term to one year allows for temporary resource unavailabilities, and could limit qualified persons from undue pain and suffering through no fault of their own, or succumbing to their illness before fulfilling the requirements set forth under HB 54. Setting a term of one year would maximize a desired outcome of preserving a qualified persons' dignity.
I would also like to include specific text prohibiting any insurance claims from being denied based on the enactment of such a treatment under the claim of suicide by the qualified person.
(4b) I agree whole heartedly with the spirit of the mention text regarding the preservation of dignity of a person and limiting undue suffering. This concept is also supported by Dan Brock. Brock maintains "For many patients near death, maintaining the quality of one's life, avoiding great suffering, maintaining one's dignity, and insuring that others remember us was we wish them to become of paramount importance and outweigh merely extending one's life...If self-determination is a fundamental value, then the great variability among people on this question makes especially important that individuals control the manner, circumstances, and timing of their dying and death" (646).
(4c) Some may express their opposition to HB 54 and this potential end-of-life decision, but stressing an individual's autonomy should overrule in this case. Again, to cite Brock, the majority of those in our state would not opt for this option, but this bill would "supplement the broader control over the process of dying by giving the right to decide about life-sustaining treatment" (560). The text of this bill accounts for the potential of maleficence by requiring two physicians, and potentially a psychiatrist, to verify and validate a qualified person's request, and ensure such a request has not been done under coercion.
(4d) I conclude by stressing the importance of a person's freedoms. To invoke one's constitutional rights of freedom and autonomy, allowing a qualified person to take control of their life which has been removed by disease, is of the highest nobility. By embracing such a policy, we are not losing our humanity, it allows those affected to keep theirs and restore their dignity.
Explanation / Answer
The passage stresses on the importance of giving freedom and autonomy to a person who has a terminal illness to decide when they will end their life. Although, law prohibits people from committing suicide, it provides a relaxation in such a way that the assisted euthanasia help one die with dignity because no one could witness a person struggling until death without any hope for recovery. In an individualistic society such as America, people value individual’s right about themselves more to that of any other external force such as society, culture etc. that will make decision for the individual. So, in my opinion people should be given their due respect to choose whether to continue to suffer while waiting for a miracle or request for ending their life while they are aware in order to stop all the sufferings they undergo without a hope for cure.
Related Questions
Navigate
Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.