Misguided guidelines.
The proposed guidelines would require detailed, probing inquiry into motivation for choosing assisted suicide. This is an appropriate requirement in principle. In practice, it will be virtually impossible to carry out this inquiry within likely statutory time limits. Evaluators most likely will either reject the guidelines as impractical or give them merely perfunctory observance. There is, moreover, an inherent tension in the evaluator's relationship with the patient between empathy and impersonal distancing that the guidelines do not adequately acknowledge; this tension necessarily compromises the evaluator's ability to apply the guidelines in the probing, detailed manner they envision. The guidelines provide false comfort that physician-assisted suicide can be carried out with adequately sensitive monitoring of voluntariness and mental competence.
Burt
R A
RA
Yale University Law School, 208215 Yale Station, New Haven, Connecticut 06520, USA. robert.burt@yale.edu
D003657:Decision Making; D006801:Humans; D007883:Legislation, Medical; D016743:Mental Competency / Q000592:standards*; D009042:Motivation; D009922:Oregon; D010817:Physician-Patient Relations; D017410:Practice Guidelines as Topic; D017236:Suicide, Assisted / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence / Q000523:psychology; D019452:Terminally Ill