The right decision isn’t always the easiest
By Greg Horner
The debate over assisted suicide isn’t just a moral argument, it’s a philosophical one as well. Do people have a right to control how they die? Is it better to die in agony if it preserves the sanctity of life? Our society has been dealing with these questions for some time, and it’s unlikely that we’ll ever find a satisfying answer. But for families dealing with terminal illness and the prospect of imminent death, the issue is far less abstract.
I support physician-assisted suicide because I’ve seen loved ones suffer.I can’t tell you how terrible it is to witness a close relative’s lungs slowly fill with fluid while they die in delirious agony. It’s a terrible experience, and until you’ve witnessed it you might never understand why some people agree with me.
There are those who feel that legalizing physician-assisted suicide is a slippery slope, that legalizing suicide for the terminal could one day extend to the disabled and mentally ill. This is a faulty argument based on historical fears of euthanasia and state-sanctioned genocide. Unless we start seeing blackshirts goose-stepping in Times Square I don’t think that slippery slope argument holds water (and besides, we’d have bigger problems to worry about).
As long as the illness is terminal and the physician and patient agree,I wholeheartedly believe that people should be able to control their own death. Damning a person to a slow painful death is cruel; sometimes the morally right decision isn’t always the easiest one to make.
However, there is a caveat to all this.In order for physician-assisted suicide to be just, access to health care must be equitable and affordable to everyone regardless of class, race or creed. We still live in a country where people are bankrupted by medical bills, and the prospect of a family having to choose between assisted suicide or financial ruin is a terrifying and dystopian thought.
Physician-assisted suicide will only ever be appropriate once we as a society raise and tackle these difficult questions. Some states such as Oregon,California and Vermont have begun the conversation; but it will take the whole nation to deal with the ramifications of what assisted suicide means and how it can be implemented in a humane and equal way.
I believe that one day we’ll live in a country where healthcare is universal.I believe that one day we will live in a country where physician-assisted suicide is accepted.
At the end of the day, people should have the right to choose how they die because in reality it’s the only choice they’ll ever get to make.
Dignified? Or bureaucratic nightmare?
By Lindsey Schibelhut
Many millennials were either not born yet or too young to remember Michigan based doctor, Jack Kevorkian. Kevorkian was put on trial four times between May 1994 and June 1997, for helping at least 130 patients die via assisted suicide. His court case brought to light the struggle for patients to “die with dignity” in their final stages of life or people wanting to alleviate other suffering. However, I don’t feel assisted suicide is right, nor do I feel that it’s as much about “dying with dignity” as much as it is a slippery slope into medical tyranny.
In a 1996 interview on CBS’s ’60 Minutes’, Kevorkian explained how assisted suicide is more humane than the treatments that go on inside hospitals.
“They [hospitals] take away their [patients] feeding and water when you’re in a coma and let them die. You’re validating what the Nazi’s did in concentration camps! That’s brutal! That is inhumane! When you say a person should be allowed to die, inject them quickly and painlessly, not let them wither away and starve to death!” says Kevorkian.
Since Kevorkian’s case in the early ‘90s, five states across the U.S. legally allow “death with dignity.” Those five states are: Oregon, Washington, Vermont, New Mexico and Montana.
With 35 years of experience, Oregon physician, William L. Toffler, said in his 2015 Wall Street Journal opinion column “A Doctor-Assisted Disaster for Medicine,” that the practice of assisted suicide is not only harming patients, but also his profession.
“I have seen firsthand how the law has changed the relationship between doctors and patients, some of whom now fear that they are being steered toward assisted suicide,” says Toffler.
Toffler says over two dozen patients have come to him to discuss assisted suicide. He also spoke of a bladder cancer patient who contacted him, feeling their oncologist was steering them towards assisted suicide. The patient then decided to get a second opinion and it was met with a more positive response.
“Whichever of the consultants was correct, such fears were never an issue before,” says Toffler.
Now for my two cents; The subject of assisted suicide was never on my radar until this past summer. During the clear-out process of my grandparents home (we were selling it to have money to keep them in a nursing facility), a family member of mine mentioned this topic.
This family member thought that their father (my grandfather) who is 94 isn’t living a quality life anymore. Since grandpa is now wheelchair-bound (after a hip break), has a catheter and only eats, sleeps and sits, does this mean this stage of his life is irrelevant? My family member (who is vain and perpetually terrified of getting old) chooses not to want to live that way in their old age. They said that they wished they lived in a place such as Oregon, so that if they ever get to that stage of life, they could be assisted in death.
One problem I have with the assisted suicide logic is, who determines what constitutes a “quality life?” This is all a matter of opinion. While my grandfather can no longer care for himself, he is still capable of carrying on meaningful conversation, which will be memories I’ll cherish long after he passes.
Another consideration – as mentioned prior – is medical tyranny. Will the ill, infirm and cognitively disabled be taken advantage of by bureaucrats, to be led down the path of assisted suicide instead of life saving measures? According to Toffler this is a real possibility.
“Also concerning are the regular notices I receive indicating that many important services and drugs for my patients—even some pain medications—will not be covered by the Oregon Health Plan, the state’s Medicaid program,” explains Toffler, “Yet physician-assisted suicide is covered by the state and our collective tax dollars. Supporters claim physician-assisted suicide gives patients choice, but what sort of a choice is it when life is expensive but death is free?”
Microsoft founder and former CEO, Bill Gates, in 2010 at the “Aspen Ideas Festival” made a disturbing comment regarding end of life care which should give everyone pause.
“Is spending a million dollars on that last three months of life for that patient, would it be better to not lay off those ten teachers, to make that trade in medical costs? But that’s called a “death panel” and you’re not supposed to have that discussion,” laughs Gates.
While Kevorkian may have thought the “dignified death” was all the patient’s decision, comments such as Gate’s, lead you to believe it won’t be your decision as much as it will be the doctors.
Another concern I have is whether assisted suicide will be a choice only left for terminally ill patients or if it will be an option for anyone who determines they are “suffering.” According to a 1997 Detroit Free Press article by Kirk Cheyfitz called “SUICIDE MACHINE, PART 1: Kevorkian rushes to fulfill his clients’ desire to die” states:
“In a 1992 article setting out his rules for physician- assisted suicides, Kevorkian wrote it is always mandatory to bring in a psychiatrist because a person’s “mental state is . . . of paramount importance.” But the Free Press found at least 19 cases in which Kevorkian did not contact psychiatrists. In at least five of those cases, the people who died had histories of depression.”
The Detroit Free Press also found 17 cases related to Kevorkian where he, “FAILED to observe minimum waiting periods before helping people to die. [And] found at least 17 instances in which Kevorkian’s first meeting with the person was also his last. In at least five of these, less than three hours passed from the signing of the request to the moment of death. In one case, the waiting period was one hour.”
So some people may not have taken proper time to seek out professional help and really think through the decision of having someone assist their suicide. Could alternative treatments have been sought out such as therapy for instance?
Finally, assisted suicide for me is a faith based issue as well. In the Bible it states: 1 Corinthians 6:15,19 (NET) “Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ? 9 Or do you not know that your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and you are not your own?”
As a Christian I was always taught to believe suicide is wrong and that our bodies are not our own to do what we want with, we were bought with a price, by Jesus dying on the cross.
The issue of assisted suicide is a heated one and – despite the alleged “positives” – there are just as many negatives which need to be addressed. I personally don’t believe killing yourself or having someone do it for you is the answer, no matter what stage of life you find yourself in. ALL life should be considered valid – even those who are coming to the end of theirs. With modern medicine there should be ways to keep someone comfortable (palliative care) in their most trying hours, instead of becoming the “Dr. of Death” as Kevorkian was so aptly named.
