Agree 100%. I think some of the commenters only skimmed what you wrote, by the fact that they're weighing only the basic question of physician assisted suicide, whether or not it should be legal, period. But (if I understand right), your view as a physician is that you know from firsthand experience about the suffering of some terminal patients and so you agree with the basic legality question, but took issue with the movie's raw advocacy of a guy going around helping people commit suicide without a broader system of checks and balances. Yeah?
Probably some people would argue, 'Why should any checks and balances be required for a person deciding on his own end-of-life? It's HIS life (or HER life)."
This is essentially like marijuana prohibition. Nowadays a majority of people agree the law should not prohibit a person from using it, because it's their life after all. The problem comes in when you consider specifics, like the very important question of procurement--Should people who offer it face any legal requirements? Sure some would say, "No! Free market. Safe drug. Nobody else's business!" But come on. If your grocery store has to add sales tax to tomatoes for which they barely make a profit, why shouldn't a rolling-in-cash marijuana retailer have to? And more importantly, shouldn't he have to verify that the buyer is of legal age? Should buyers be allowed to resell? Should there be purchase limits, pricing regulations, advertisement regulations? Should retailers be allowed to discriminate based on race, religion, sexual preference, etc.? So, by beating this dead horse, hopefully I've illustrated that while marijuana legalization seems a no-brainer, there are complexities that must be addressed in any place it becomes legal to not only use but sell. No logic would give the green light to any ol' guy prowling the neighborhood to sell from his van. We still don't want HIM, even if we want weed.
But that's essentially what Kevorkian did, van and all. Even if HE had stringent, self-imposed criteria (who, what, why?), who's to say the next guy would? Unregulated freelance suicide assistance could mean somebody sad about a breakup faking terminal illness and dying unnecessarily. Or somebody being denied assistance because they don't "seem" miserable enough. Would health insurance companies balk at the idea of paying for suicide, or love it (probalby cost them less than would-be remaining end-of-life costs)? Would the cost of assisted living create pressure to choose assisted dying sooner after diagnosis than a person might be ready, if they didn't have this option?
As with most controversial subjects, in most media P.A.S. gets reduced to oversimplified arguments, at best. At worst, it becomes catch phrases that have lost their meaning, words people don't even understand, beyond using them to tell conservatives apart from liberals (yes, I'm talking about you, "death panels").
The movie about J.K. may not have addressed all the necessary questions, but hopefully the man put us on the path to facing them, slow, steep and winding as it is.
reply
share