Social work policy analysis

Social Work Policy Analysis

The accepted social policies of our present day are based on the themes, values and goals that citizens support for humane changes in policy toward a renaissance of government activism. In the words of David Gil, "Through lobbying, communities or citizens can often effect changes and new developments to social policy, which meet their needs on both the community level and the individual level (Gil, 1992)." In the past few years the topic of physician-assisted suicide and the right to die statutes have emerged as a growing concern among medical professionals, citizens, and government officials alike. One such statute, the Oregon Death with Dignity Act, which allows physicians to write prescriptions for a lethal dosage of medication to people with illness, is an example of a new policy. The act was a citizen's initiative passed in which patients must meet certain criteria to participate, including two oral requests separated by at least 15 days, a written request to the attending physician, signed by two witnesses, and the patient must not appear to be suffering from any psychological disorder. The Oregon Death with Dignity Act can be analyzed in terms of David Gil's Policy Analysis Framework.

David Gil's Policy Framework consists of three main objectives: 1) issues constituting the focus of the policy, such as its' nature, scope and theory, 2) the objectives, values and ideological orientation of the policy, underlying theories, target population and the manner in which it is effected, and financial costs and benefits, quality of life, historical background of the policy, the size, resources and values of the group supporting the policy, and 3) alternative to the policy. In an analysis guided by David Gil's Policy Analysis Framework, the "objective" of Oregon's Death with Dignity statute is to settle the genuine dispute as to what the desires of an incapacitated person really are. However, this objective is the government's viewpoint that an incapacitated person must not want to live because of their current situation. The objective of the statute is the result of situations where court appointed and statutory guardians have had potential conflicts of interest, and another party with authority is needed to assist in settling the dispute. There are some cases where there does appear to be a legitimate basis for the government to intervene.

The values and the ideological orientation of the statute appear to be based on non-discrimination, civil rights and self-determination. Studies of patient attitudes toward assisted suicide and euthanasia indicate that a patient's interest in physician-assisted suicide appear to be a function of psychological stress and social factors. The underlying theory of the statute is that incapacitated or terminally ill individuals should be given an opportunity to die with dignity, before they become a burden on family and friends that take care of them. This theory is based largely in part on the fact that society has not done much to educate the healthy population about the manner in which incapacitated or terminally ill people live normal and dignified lives. This is based on the theory, posed by citizens, that certain individuals afflicted with terminal illnesses should have the legal right to hasten their death.

As a result, individuals that acquire these disabilities often view death as an extremely viable solution.

The target population that the Oregon Death with Dignity statute involves are those that are terminally ill. There are both long and short-term effects of the statute on the rest of the population, as well as the target population. Oregon has the fourth highest rate of elder suicide in the United States, and the statute appears to be a short-term solution to a long-term problem. The statute gives physicians the long-term power to judge whether a particular suicide is rational, based on the physician's evaluation of the individual's quality of life. The short-term effect of the statute is that federal resources previously used to care for the elderly and terminally ill will be freed up to be allocated toward other uses. Since the statute effects the population in question, the public will not take any action to change the mindset of these ill individuals. Rather, their "right-to-die" will be supported. The long-term effect of the statute is that no physician will be charged with manslaughter for facilitating an assisted suicide, or prosecuted under drug laws. More importantly, doctors will once again be in control of making all of the health care decisions. Those that probably do not really want to die will assess their current situation, and assume that the government is most likely right in it's reach.