Let’s say I have a terminal illness and am in so much pain and want to be put to death.
Now why would I not be allowed to ask the physician to kill me?
Because it is not a physician’s job to kill people.
Because the separation of church and state is largely lip-service.
(1) It’s legal in Oregon, Washington and Montana.
(2) There are public policy reasons that do not involve religion that can justify the forty-seven states’ decision to criminalize physician-assisted suicide.
Because lots of people think suicide is wrong, no matter what, and even as that view changes over time, the laws change much more slowly.
To expand a bit on Bricker’s post, the underlying rationales are as follows:
Because dying is not a fundamental right (at least not to SCOTUS), the state only has to show that its ban is “reasonably related” to those interests. IMHO, that flies in the face of SCOTUS’ other decisions about bodily autonomy, but they didn’t ask for my opinion.
That’s not really germane to the OP’s real question, though, which is why you can’t ask anyone to kill you. Plus, physicians do kill people - they just only do it on the orders of the state.
Got a cite for that? In the US, physicians are enjoined to NOT participate in executions. Physicians are obliged to serve the patient’s legitimate medical needs.
Some state medical boards have taken that position, yes. Others have not (or in the case of NC have been prohibited from enforcing their positions.) But even where physicians do not directly participate in executions they are necessary adjuncts. Physicians designed the methods and protocols for lethal injection, for example, and at the very least serve as coroners.
Anyway, the point is that the law generally does not prohibit physicians from assisting in executions; it’s a regulatory framework or even the rules of a voluntary association, which is not the same thing.
For the same reason that you can’t kill other people in general.
Crap, some boards have been backsliding too! Damn, I thought we’d managed to achieve consensus that it is unethical to participate in executions.
Now I’m depressed. Well, more depressed.
Not my profession, but it seems to be that if we are going to have executions then there ought to be doctors on hand to make sure it’s done humanely (or at least as humanely as possible.) Naturally, it would be my preference that we not have them at all.
I’m not particularly concerned with making executions ‘humane’, but I suppose having someone on hand who can confirm that death has occurred is a plus.
Wouldn’t you want the doctor on hand to do everything possible to prevent the execution from happening at all?
This. Because we have too many religious people in charge and they don’t want this to happen because religion
Why would I want that?
American physicians do participate in effective euthanasia under the principle of double effect. SCOTUS has supported them in their acts. It is not widely known but it is the case that high levels of pain killers sufficient to have both an analgesic and life ending effect are prescribed.
Perhaps you could point us to SCOTUS’ support for this practice.
Vacco v Quill 1997
Washington v Glucksberg 1997
Wouldn’t you want any physicians on hand to do their best to preserve human life? There is something in the Physician’s Oath about that-“The health of my patient will be my first consideration.”
edited to add: That is “health” by the way, not “life”. There is a difference between killing, or allowing to be killed, a perfectly healthy human being, and helping a dying person along on her/his final journey.
Post #6 refutes this claim.