The argument about the slippery slope ending in corporations, relatives, hospitals willy-nilly killing people does not wash. It may be passionate but it is not convincing. The terms of the Death with Dignity Act are that the patient must meet certain criteria for a physician to prescribe the medicine that at some point later the patient CAN opt to take voluntarily. The physician himself is not allowed to give the medicine (yes, it is medicine, a sedative, not poison) to the patient, nor can a corporation, a relative, a hospital decide for the patient or administer the sedative overdose. If a doctor does authorize any pain killer or sedative in a dose that results in patient death, just as before the Death with Dignity Act, and without its use, the doctor, entity, or person doing so can be tried for murder.
As you say, both society and some medical professionals dismiss the disabled, relatives can find them a burden, and their care can be sub-standard due to poor insurance coverage or to a prevailing attitude and stereotype. However, this fact does not change the terms of the Death with Dignity Act. Yes, if a patient is brain dead and in lieu of their having made their wishes know, relatives and hospitals can withhold treatment when there is no hope of recovery. Withholding treatment of taking people off life support in cases in which they are in an irreversible condition only kept (technically) alive by mechanical means--that is not the same as a patient voluntarily, consciously, being prescribed and himself taking a lethal dose of medicine. The patient must prove he/she is rational, that her decision is not influenced by a mental condition, must be terminal, must be suffering, and can not be injected--the counseling process, the legal explanation is all laid out ahead of time and even at the last moment the patient can chose not to take the prescribed medicine. No, the act does not make it legal to kill disabled people or the elderly. The same ethical and legal responsibilities exist, the same oversight of a health professional or hospital's actions are in place, and the same consequences will be faced for illegal murder or negligence as in states without the act and as before the act was legal--
People are resistant and frightened because a) they do not understand the Death with Dignity Act b) hold false ideas about it c) are afraid of their own mortality d) feel it violates their religion. Almost every religion is against it and will refuse church rites and burial and any support to those who use physician assisted suicide.
As to the man with prostrate cancer--his insurance company would not approve his treatment (before publicity about his case) with or without his being eligible for physician assisted suicide. He actually was lucky that his insurance would pay for the medicine had he chosen to use it. A friend of mine is having to put a large outlay of money out of pocket so that she can get her prescription refilled for use when and if she chooses to take it. She is dying of ALS and is suffering. She will most likely die choking or suffocating to death while being completely conscious that this is what is happening to her and feeling the entire process. She will die not matter what. But she is concerned with how. And she is unwilling to endure "locked in syndrome," or much more physical pain than she experiences now. She can not talk. She is in a wheel chair. She can use email but her hands are going so eventually and soon she will not be able to type. She will soon be unable to swallow. She is learning the eye gaze to run computer communication but will lose the ability to focus her eyes. Ultimately she will be able despite being on ventilation to breathe. There is no cure. A feeding tube, even being on a ventilator will not necessarily prolong her life. It is unlikely that the prostrate cancer patient's life was much prolonged by chemotherapy but certainly his suffering was. He had the option if they had not granted an exception to just die "naturally." The insurance company had absolutely no ability to force him to use physician assisted suicide and obviously had no sway over him in the matter.
Addressing social attitudes about disabled people is a passionate and wonderful cause! Addressing their medical needs and improving on their care is a MUST! But that is an entirely different matter than offering disabled and terminal and perfectly mentally competent but suffering patients a choice about how long, how much and just WHAT they must suffer. I am sure others who respond to your concerns will want to spare you some of what they have seen and know. I've said as much as I care to, but they call it the Death with Dignity Act for a reason.
reply
share