Pre Natal Diagnosis

As medical technology becomes more advanced, we find that our definition of life is subject to a myriad of complex interpretations and diagnostic tools. On one hand, modern technology has given us the capability to correct god's imperfections, yet on the other, we find ourselves asking if that is synonymous with a god given right.

Clearly, we are forced to make complex medical decisions we never dreamed possible. Decisions about the quality of life is a complicated question subject to a variety of definition of what constitutes living

The first time I took Ethics, as a high school senior, I found it difficult to understand why Euthanasia was introduced as a controversial topic. What I brought into that discussion was the memory of my Grandmother's Irish Setter who was "put to sleep" the day before my 8^th birthday. As she and my Grandpa explained, it was the humane thing to do, since she was suffering in so much pain. Although I was saddened by the news, I never questioned my Grandmother's decision to ease the pain of my dying dog.

Although as a society, we place a higher value on a human life, it seems evident that we actively protect loved ones from physical pain when they are unable to act for themselves. I doubt anyone would argue that my Grandmother made such a decision for reasons other than to protect Mandy from the excruciating pain brought on by her Cancer.

Clearly, anyone forced to make a decision about the quality of ones life is faced with an awesome responsibility that inherently demands some sort of value judgment in when considering life's options. Few would argue that anyone should be subjected to unbearable pain when there is a viable option available. However, despite advances in modern medicine, the American Medical Association (AMA) reported just last week that 40% of people are still dying in chronic pain.

Perhaps this is a reflection of the intolerable pain Dean Welsh described of his mother's last days-- where attempts to obliterate extreme pain with medication brings on potentially dangerous side effects. We clearly recognize the tragedy of this situation, and can acknowledge that no matter what we wish for the patient, pain remains the reality. At this point, medical doctors and loved ones face a difficult decision in finding the best way to manage the patient's pain.

These thoughts and feelings were not changed by the student presentation on Physician Assisted Suicide last week. What did change was my feeling about who should make these decisions. Although apparently an unpopular idea, I felt more comfortable with the notion of "Philosopher Assisted Suicide" than anything else. Clearly, "Physician" Assisted Suicide adds a component of scientific validity to the situation, and the idea of a government-regulated bureaucracy adds sterility, corruption, and incompetence as well.

The biggest source of concern with the legalization of Physician Assisted Suicide remains in the tainted profit motives of HMOs and health insurance companies. Given a situation where an illness may be successfully treated with an expensive course of treatment, utilization review may be tainted if physician assisted suicide were to become a viable option in the eyes of the law This may interfere with the legislative intent to spare individuals last days from excruciating pain.

In light of this fact, I feel more comfortable with the situation we have now which places the patient at the forefront of the decision making process, and yields slightly more protection against abuse in the system. According to the class presentation and the lecture which followed, physician assisted suicide is more common than it would appear by the recent publicity surrounding the Dr. Kavorkian case. If this true, than I would opt for the status quo as a preferable solution to government intervention and regulation.