should California legalize physician assisted suicide

“Dying is not a crime.” R13; Jack KevorkianBody autonomy is the ultimate point in this argument, the concept that each individual has control over their own body and that inviolability overrides any external individual’s morals or feeling about how you may use your own body.The likely sources of interference with an individual’s right to body autonomy in the case of euthanasia are; 1) Medical professionals2) The state (government)3) Religion – Moral4) Family I will make efforts to address each with some level of detail.Medical Professionals."First do no harm." Well, that seems somewhat clear, and most of us have used this statement attached to the medical world, often with “Hippocratic Oath” in the same sentence. There is, however, some issues with the statement. It is nowhere IN the Hippocratic Oath! [1][2]. The oath does contain some pertinent passages to our topic. “I will apply, for the benefit of the sick, all measures which are required, avoiding those twin traps of overtreatment and therapeutic nihilism.” What a great statement. It is warning the young healer that the application of his skills should have limits apart from his own skills. That “therapeutic nihilism” [3] or skepticism of any and all options should be avoided.But wait, there’s more!"I will remember that there is art to medicine as well as science, and that warmth, sympathy, and understanding may outweigh the surgeon's knife or the chemist's drug."“... Most especially must I tread with care in matters of life and death. If it is given me to save a life, all thanks. But it may also be within my power to take a life; this awesome responsibility must be faced with great humbleness and awareness of my own frailty. Above all, I must not play at God.”“I will remember that I do not treat a fever chart, a cancerous growth, but a sick human being, whose illness may affect the person's family and economic stability. My responsibility includes these related problems, if I am to care adequately for the sick.”I quote almost the entirety of the modern oath above, as it is a wonderful statement. “…warmth, sympathy, and understanding may outweigh the surgeon's knife or the chemist's drug.” “If it is given me to save a life, all thanks. But it may also be within my power to take a life; this awesome responsibility…”There’s a lot of good stuff in there. Even some that may be beneficial to con in this debate. On balance, the oath is a spectacular statement for how physicians should approach their patients. One thing is clear, the oath is speaks to balance in treatment, not rigidity. It does not insist that physicians treat a patient past his consent. It asks the doctor to be humble and receptive to his patient, to the patient’s problems outside of the medical issues, and that may include dropping the surgeon's knife or the chemist's drug.The medical professional has no obligation to violate the patient’s body autonomy.The StateI wonder about the order of my points, and may reorder them later. The State is the only current absolute bar to euthanasia, and therefor may deserve higher placement on the list.The question of where the state gains the power to limit an individual’s right to body autonomy as it relates to euthanasia is questionable. Where, potentially, the individual gains the right is less murky. It’s the 14th amendment to the United States Constitution [4]. The current interpretation of the amendment as it related to body autonomy has not extended to euthanasia yet. “The right of privacy has evolved to protect the freedom of individuals to choose whether or not to perform certain acts or subject themselves to certain experiences.” [4], but is clearly on its way to being tested.Government, apart from doctorial regimes, must reflect the will of the governed. Provided any proposed law does not violate the constitutional restraint, government must do the bidding of the people. In this, the message is clear. 7 in 10 Americans back Euthanasia [5].There is nothing restraining the government from extending body autonomy to include euthanasia.Religion – Moral.This section of objection has little gray area as it relates to the question. With few exceptions, all major religions reject euthanasia, and body autonomy in other subjects – notably abortion.That there is little decent from a common opinion does not mean that this section is without need for discussion. There is no doubt that in our country religion should not interfere with legality. That, however, is naïve. The collective morals of the society inform the laws of the same, there for a discussion of morals is a cornerstone of the debate, and since we are talking the United States, Christianity plays a major role in the debate.Let’s start with the owner’s manual for the faith, the Bible. Similarly to the misunderstanding about the Hypocritical Oath, the bible has nothing directly to say about euthanasia [6]. This passage from the bible rang in my head, driving me to search - "Since his days are determined, The number of his months is with You; And his limits You have set so that he cannot pass” - (Job 14:5). Well, as I am often told, the lord works in mysterious ways, and I can’t possibly see how his will is usurped through euthanasia. There seems nothing that says that the load can’t work through the individual, or through a physician, or a family member, in determining the number of days. One could point to “thou shalt not kill", but that must be wrong. Well, it is commonly accepted to be “murder” not kill [7]. The bible sure wouldn’t say “kill” as it seems to be the topic of so much material in the book. No, murder is the right word. Since to be murder, a killing must be illegal, that’s what makes it murder! Since the material in the bible related to the subject is so thin, it must religion working outside the bounds of the Bible. If that’s the case, I don’t see how Christianity can deny euthanasia as a body autonomy right. FamilyAn individual’s family is a critical in this debate. They are critical because in many cases, medical decisions must fall to the family. In the case of Schiavo in Florida we saw an interesting clash of family. The question about the will of the patient was murky to her parents, and crystal clear to her husband. A Living will would have cleared up the mess about her intent, and made clear her choice. I think I will save more on family for another round. Hippocratic Oath Modern[1] http://guides.library.jhu.edu...Hippocratic Oath Greek [2] http://guides.library.jhu.edu...Therapeutic Nihilism[3] http://www.merriam-webster.com...Personal Autonomy – legal[4] https://www.law.cornell.edu...Poll - Euthanasia[5] http://www.gallup.com...The Bible and euthanasia[6] https://carm.org...Bible "thou shalt not murder"[7] https://www.biblegateway.com...