Mercy Bill

Despite the disparity of qualities such as race, sex, sexuality and gender identity among people, there is one truth that binds every human together–death is inescapable. However, do humans possess the power and right to legally enforce death upon another if the person requests it to end physical and psychological pains resulting from a terminal illness? Noah Orth, an Oral Roberts University delegate, addressed this question in the house on November 15th through his “Mercy Act” bill.

The bill allowed for patients who are 18 years old, a resident of Oklahoma and possess the ability to communicate health care decisions and requests to ask for assisted suicide medication. Orth stated that Oklahomans, “need it, have a right to it, want it and can control it.”

With divided house opinions, the bill poised unresolved ramifications and individual and interpersonal benefits under its passing.

One potential issue with the legalizing of assisted suicide resided in the allocation of payment resources for the individual undergoing the procedure. Orth, after accepting a friendly amendment to his bill, added life insurance protection initiatives so that financial requirements could still be met.

“Patients are dying regardless and their decision to die a few months before their prognosis shouldn’t affect their life insurance coverage.”  Orth said.

However, some people of the opponency side were not as worried about future financial consequences as they were with immediate political, ethical and moral and implications of the bill. One member of the Oklahoma State delegation, *Kody Swearingin, expressed concern in an amendment proposing to raise the legal age of consent to assisted suicide to 21.

“If we change the age in this bill, we are essentially changing the way that an adult can consent to age.” Swearingin said, “Therefore, we should change the voting age and driving age. We should change the consent age and even the age to sign a contract.”

While many other laws not only in the state of Oklahoma but also nationally recognized ones providing rights to 18 year olds with other major legal consenting privileges like volunteering to join the military, an amendment stating that a person cannot choose how to handle their own life contradicts the precedents of other consent related bills.

The age change, however, can be viewed as a necessity in order to encourage ethical acts.

The fear that 18 year old brains are not fully developed concerned delegation members for ethical clearance. An opponent to the amendment stated that the age a brain is fully developed is at 27, however, Urmc.edu, npr.org, and the Science of Psychology written by Laura King state that the age is actually 25, therefore invalidating the notion. Regardless, the older the age, the more assured that the patient is making a sound decision.

On the other hand, the age a brain is fully developed can be hindered by certain illnesses and traumas. It is also potentially dangerous to go give credence to a physical age rather than the psychological age and the patient’s ability to consent.

The delegation members saw moral positives and negatives in the bill as a whole.  Otto Weimer* said, “the right to kill yourself is not recognized by a just moral system as it takes away the ability for people to recover from a catastrophic injury. Even if only one percent of the people afflicted were able to recover, that would still be a huge amount of moral good.”

Others, like representative Baker, wondered if the legalizing of assisted suicide would help promote liberty and autonomy by giving patients the option to decide their fate.

 “Giving a choice is just that.” Baker said. “A choice.”

Although the delegation was split in understanding the benefits and ramifications of the proposition, the bill ultimately passed on the house floor.