A critical analysis of criticisms of the Oregon Death with Dignity Act.
This article critically examines the validity of common criticisms of the Oregon Death with Dignity Act, primarily through reviewing published research and analyses. After summarizing the law and recent developments, 11 areas of concerns are examined: (a) the amount of data collected, (b) the availability of the data, (c) the reporting process, (d) protection of physicians, (e) terminal illness as a requirement, (f) the amount of data on palliative care interventions, (g) data on lethal prescriptions, (h) data on psychological/psychiatric evaluations, (i) whether the decision to request medication is informed, (j) whether the request is voluntary, and (k) financial factors. The authors examine each of these areas of concern and find criticisms to be unfounded given the research and analyses conducted to date.
Werth
James L
JL
Department of Psychology, The University of Akron, Akron, OH 44325-4301, USA. jwerth@uakron.edu
Wineberg
Howard
H
D003643:Death; D005069:Evaluation Studies as Topic; D006801:Humans; D007258:Informed Consent / Q000941:ethics / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence / Q000523:psychology; D007883:Legislation, Medical / Q000941:ethics; D016743:Mental Competency / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence / Q000523:psychology; D009922:Oregon; D010166:Palliative Care / Q000941:ethics / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence / Q000523:psychology; D010424:Pentobarbital / Q000627:therapeutic use; D026684:Personal Autonomy; D010819:Physician's Role; D012297:Right to Die / Q000941:ethics / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence*; D017236:Suicide, Assisted / Q000941:ethics / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence*; D019452:Terminally Ill / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence / Q000523:psychology
D010424:Pentobarbital