This paper examines the Oregon Death With Dignity Act within the broader context of American healthcare spending, cultural attitudes toward death, and medical resource allocation. The United States spends significantly more on healthcare as a percentage of GNP than other developed nations, with a disproportionate share consumed in the final weeks and months of life. Drawing comparisons with European and Japanese cultural and medical practices, the paper argues that allowing patients to voluntarily forgo heroic end-of-life interventions could free scarce resources for preventative care, improving overall public health outcomes. Oregon's right-to-die legislation is presented as one component of a comprehensive effort to rationalize healthcare delivery and redirect spending toward higher-impact areas.
The paper employs comparative policy analysis, juxtaposing U.S. healthcare expenditure patterns and cultural norms with those of other developed nations to argue for systemic reform. Rather than relying solely on normative ethical reasoning, it builds a pragmatic, utilitarian case that challenges the reader to weigh end-of-life heroic intervention against preventative care investments — a technique that makes the argument accessible to readers skeptical of purely philosophical frameworks.
The paper opens with macroeconomic statistics on healthcare spending, then contextualizes the U.S. within international comparisons. It moves through cultural attitudes toward death, introduces the Oregon legislation, addresses physician incentive structures, and closes by reframing the ethical question around resource reallocation. This funnel structure — broad data to specific policy — is well-suited to persuasive policy writing at the undergraduate level.
America spends 50% more on healthcare as a percentage of GNP than any other country. Those countries closest to the U.S. — France and Germany — each spend approximately 10% of their GNP on healthcare (EIU, 2007). Sixty percent of an American's healthcare expenses occur in the last year of life, and forty percent of all Medicare expenses are spent on the elderly in the final month of their life (PBS, n.d.).
These figures are significantly higher than in other developed countries. Although the United States is often said to have the "best healthcare system in the world," Americans do not live longer than people in other nations. In fact, U.S. life expectancy falls below that of countries which spend considerably less on healthcare, including Japan, France, Finland, and Canada (EIU, 2007). While not all countries share the same demographic profile as the United States, one can reasonably question whether the expensive end-of-life care delivered in this country actually improves outcomes.
Part of the reason for the difference may lie in culture. The U.S. has a much higher rate of aggressive intervention in terminal cases, and rates of procedures are considerably higher in the U.S. than in other developed countries. While many Europeans and Japanese accept that a patient is dying of a fatal disease, Americans — including patients, patients' families, and healthcare providers — are far more willing to pursue dramatic treatment options, even when it is a foregone conclusion that the patient will not survive. In the absence of an express directive from the patient refusing drastic measures, the court system and the interventionist mindset of healthcare providers together create a strong impetus for aggressive treatment.
Another dimension of the American cultural attitude toward death emerges in contrast with Germany, France, and Japan (Klein, 2007). The Taoist and Buddhist attitude toward death holds that it is a natural part of life. In general, Japanese physicians and patients' families accept that a dying patient should be made comfortable, but that no drastic actions should be taken to extend life by a few days or weeks when there is no hope of meaningful improvement.
Some observers with cross-cultural experience have examined this subject closely. A study of Italians, for example, found that most (62%) preferred dying at home among family rather than in a hospital (7%) (Crisci, 2001). In the Netherlands, informed-consent deaths have been legally permitted for a number of years. Many Dutch physicians interviewed prior to the passage of formal legislation noted that the law simply codified what they had already been doing in practice for years.
One may argue that framing end-of-life healthcare in cost terms is unethical, or at least distasteful. This paper does not advocate for forced euthanasia. Rather, it argues that allowing a patient to die according to his or her own wishes is a better use of healthcare resources than taking heroic measures to prolong life — regardless of how painful, demeaning, or purposeless that prolongation may be.
The decision to pursue drastic measures at the end of life may account for a substantial portion of the United States' disproportionate healthcare spending. If Germans, French, and Japanese spend roughly 50% less per capita and as a share of GNP than the U.S., they also spend considerably less on end-of-life interventions. That does not mean that life is ended prematurely, or that patients are put to death against their wishes.
If the United States were to give patients meaningful autonomy to forgo drastic medical intervention in the dying phase of their lives, the healthcare system could save considerable resources. Those resources — money, physicians, nurses, and facilities — could then be directed toward other, more pressing needs with a genuine impact on healthcare quality, quality of life, and life expectancy. Among the areas where such reinvestment would pay off:
The choice, then, is not simply "save money by allowing patients to die." The real choice is: "Allow patients to die rather than subjecting them to heroic measures, and redeploy those scarce resources to improve overall healthcare, quality of life, and longevity."
Nurses are required, as one of the foundational conditions of their professional oath, to triage and rationalize the delivery of care. An emergency room nurse, for example, faced with multiple patients she can treat only one at a time, must make the triage decision to focus on the patient who can benefit most from her care. That means not all patients can receive the same level of attention. The same logic applies at the systemic level.
The debate over the Oregon Death With Dignity Act ultimately calls for a reframing of the ethical question. Rather than asking whether it is permissible to allow a patient to die, we should be asking whether it is ethical to consume enormous quantities of scarce healthcare resources on interventions that the dying patient may not want, at the expense of preventative care that could improve and extend the lives of many others. Oregon's legislation, understood in context, represents not a devaluation of human life but a more honest and humane reckoning with its limits — and a more rational allocation of the resources available to support it.
Crisci, M. (2001). Attitudes towards death and dying in a representative sample of the Italian population. Palliative Medicine, 372–378.
EIU. (2007). World Economic Glossary 2008. London: Economist.
Journal. (1981). Our changing attitude towards death. The Journal of Popular Culture, 741–743.
Klein, E. (2007). The health of nations: How Europe, Canada, and our own VA do health care better. The American Prospect, n.p.
NEJM Editorial. (1994). Rationing medical care — a comparative perspective. NEJM, 1089–1091.
PBS. (n.d.). How much do we spend on end-of-life care? New York, NY: PBS Channel 13.
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.