Podcast Response

In this podcast, Amy Lewis responds to Julia Ward's argument for physician-assisted dying. Julia believes that patients should have the choice to end their lives when suffering from chronic or terminal illness. She emphasizes that it is about the patient's right to their own life and dying with dignity. Julia uses evidence from the Hippocratic Oath, stating that suffering should be minimized, to support her argument. Amy agrees with Julia, citing the oath and statistics on loss of dignity and waiting for death. She also mentions Julia's personal experience with a loved one's terminal illness. Amy highlights the Oregon Death with Dignity Act, which provides statistics on physician-assisted death, and the criteria for eligibility. She concludes that Julia's argument is strong and supports the option for physician-assisted dying. Hi, my name is Amy Lewis, and in this podcast, I will be responding to Julia Ward's podcast about physician-assisted dying, in which she argues that patients should have the option to voluntarily end their lives when their quality of life is diminished due to chronic or terminal illness. Her reasoning behind her argument is that people should have the right to their own lives and should be allowed to choose to die with dignity rather than wait for natural causes. To continue, she explains how since it's the choice of the patient, not the physician, it should be allowed, especially since it ends suffering with dignity in a very vulnerable state. The most compelling aspect of her argument is that she uses evidence from the Hippocratic Oath, which is an oath of ethics historically taken by all physicians, in which she emphasized that it states all suffering should be minimized, which fully supports her argument that patients should have the option to end their lives when suffering from chronic or terminal illnesses. I agree that patients should have the option to voluntarily end their lives when their quality of life is diminished due to chronic or terminal illnesses because of the evidence she provided about the physician's oath and the statistics about loss of dignity and waiting for death. Her argument also consisted of a personal experience of a loved one suffering due to a terminal illness, in which Julia states that they wish they could have died, which supports her argument that people should have the right to end their own lives and end suffering with dignity rather than waiting, knowing they will die anyway, and not being able to do anything about it. Relevant new research about physician-assisted death that should be considered is the Oregon Death with Dignity Act report summary that provides further statistics about physician-assisted death, stating that since the law was passed in 1997, a total of 3,712 people have received prescriptions under the DWDA, and 2,454 people have died from ingesting the medications. During 2022, DWDA deaths accounted for an estimated 0.6% of total deaths in Oregon. This statistical data is important in providing evidence of the use of this clinical way of death. To continue, further research in support of why physician-assisted death should be allowed is the criteria for eligibility, which includes being 18 years or older, having a terminal illness with a prognosis of fewer than six months to live, being mentally stable enough to make their own medical decisions, and being able to ingest the medication themselves. This criteria evidence provides support in her argument by providing a means of limitation so that not just anyone could use this as a way to end their lives, which is a reason why many people do not support physician-assisted dying as they consider it murder. Overall, Julia provided a really strong argument and provided evidence and reasoning to support her argument, in which I agree with.