Sunday, November 16, 2008

The Dangerous "Death with Dignity Act"

The "consistent ethic of life," a principle espoused by the late Cardinal Joseph Bernardin, is often summed up especially by Catholics with the phrase "from the womb to the tomb." As I have been looking at American politics over the past several months, I have been focusing largely on the protection of life in the "womb" stage. Yesterday my attention was called, however, to a legislative development that poses a threat to those closest to the "tomb" end of the spectrum. In the NY Times article "Landscape Evolves for Assisted Suicide,"Jane Gross highlights a recently approved proposition known as the "Death with Dignity Act" that raises serious moral and ethical concerns. Washington has become the second state (Oregon was the first) "where physicians are allowed to prescribe lethal doses of medication to terminally ill people who want to hasten their own deaths" (Gross, 1). The proposition, which according to Gross passed 59 percent to 41 percent, puts in place the following "safeguards" to ensure that those involved have thought through their decisions: "State residents requesting this assistance must be mentally competent, have six months or less to live accordigt to two physicians, wait 15 days after their request and then repeat that request orally and in writing. They must be capable of administering medication themselves and agree to counseling if their physicians request it. The patients also must be told of alternatives" (1). Such alternatives would mainly fall under the umbrella of "palliative care" of which Dr. Quill of the University of Rochester" is a proponent. Palliative care focuses on the quality of life of a patient and alleviating symptoms, especially when the disease cannot be cured. Quill is quoted throughout the article, and he suggests a mandatory "palliative care consultation" before patients consider what "experts" call "last resorts." At the same time, it does not seem that Dr. Quill would rule out any such "last resorts" (which range from "double effect" pain medication to "sedation to the point of unconsciousness") as acceptable courses of action. Dr. Quill has optimistically asserted that "Most patients will be reassured by the possibility of an escape and will never need to activate that escape."
Gross states that in Oregon, where a proposition similar to the one just passed in Washington has been in effect for eleven years, 341 people have taken advantage of the "escape." Also, "1 in 50 dying patients discussed the possibility with their doctors and 1 in 6 with their families." In this sense, Quill is right; the majority of those who have considered the possibility of dying by prescribed medication from their physicians have not gone through with it. Still, that such an "escape" is seen as a legal and viable option and that several hundred have already chosen it are serious problems.
The first and most obvious problem with the "Death with Dignity Act," especially for a person of faith, is that God is the Author of life. As Job cries out in the midst of his misery and woe, "The Lord gave and the Lord has taken away; blessed be the name of the Lord!" Furthermore, the recently passed Washington proposition takes our nation down a slippery slope of moral and ethical dilemmas. Although I would imagine that a great deal of dialogue and debate went into planning the specifics of the law, the "safeguards" seem a bit arbitrary to me. Why 6 months or less? Why 15 days? Why 2 doctors verifying the life expectancy of a patient? Also, is someone who is in excruciating pain really "mentally competent" enough to consider the issues at hand? I am not saying that someone in an intense amount of pain is incapable of moral judgment. Indeed, suffering in many cases results in the person drawing closer to God. I am just suggesting that perhaps due to prolonged, agonizing pain a person's sense of reality may sometimes become cloudy, and choices may seem tempting that they would never consider or endorse under other circumstances. Furthermore, in regards to the "slippery slope concern," what is to keep the Washington state legislature from putting in place even more lax standards years down the road?
Again, the heart of the matter is that intentionally overdosing on meds with the help of a doctor is seen by the government and by the majority of Washington voters as "okay." This has very dangerous implications. As euthanasia is condemned by many religions and is specifically referred to by the Catholic Church as an "intrinsic evil," such a proposition is a grave moral concern especially for people of faith. Let us be vigilant to the passage of such laws that disregard God as the Author of life, laws that pose a severe threat to the dignity of human life as it nears its final stages.

6 comments:

Claire L said...

While many religious people would view this "Death with Dignity" as going against God's plan, I can see reasons to oppose it even without bringing religion into the picture. The scary thing about this proposition is, as Jennifer aptly points out, the slippery slope argument. Once we allow patients to choose death assisted by physicians, it becomes very difficult to draw the line in future cases. What then would stop one from choosing to stop giving care to a child with a disease such as cystic fibrosis? What about when people become very old and it's difficult for them to walk or drive? What about poor people who lead miserable lives? Wouldn't it just be easier to kill them if they don't want to live in poverty? I find these possibilities frightening. I once read a book called The Giver, and in it people who contracted illnesses as minor as a common cold, old people, and even babies were "released," meaning that they were killed with assistance from doctors. The rationale was that no one should have to suffer with any disease, elderly people shouldn't have to grow old and gradually deteriorate, and we wouldn't want overpopulation, so better to just kill the extra babies once they're born. Obviously this book is fiction, but is it really that far from what is actually becoming reality in this country? God or no God, this "Death with Dignity Act" is a serious step down an uncertain, troubling, and unethical path.

pcr002 said...

I think this is a really fascinating subject and I'm glad that you brought it up, I'm not sure if I've run across it before on this blog.

I am definitely in favor of Euthanasia. I strongly believe that if a dying person is mentally competent and falls with in the parameters set up by the Washington State law, then why should a person not be able to order the end of their life? If the concern, as mentioned in the original post, is that the person will make rash decisions with a clouded mind, I think you should take another look at the requirements. Only a doctor can determine whether you are mentally competent to make this decision and they can even order psychological evaluation...additionally, alternatives are provided which I think is important. On top of this, the State makes you wait 15 days where you must clearly reinstate your intention verbally and in writing. I feel confident that these sorts of measures will prevent worst case scenarios from occurring.

What I have little patience for is the Biblical argument. For people who do not believe in God or do not follow a particular religion, to tell them that they should not be able to end THEIR OWN life because God is the Author of Life, is futile and silly. If you are morally opposed to Euthanasia based on your faith, that's perfectly fine, but what frustrates me is when people, who's moral compass is guided by religions doctrine, try to prevent others from being allowed to do something legally(gay marriage, abortion among the most prominent instances) based on their personal beliefs. Those are your beliefs, don't try to dictate others' lives based on them. The religious argument does not hold up in my opinion.

Unknown said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
MKA said...

I think this is a really interesting blog post addressing a very tough issue. You can see through the poster and commenters that everyone has their own opinion. Because those opinions are such strong convictions, I have to agree more with the second poster. I think it is everyones own personal choice as to whom they believe their creator and their reaper to be. While Christianity does not necessarily support euthanasia, this country is not officially Christian. I personally believe that God makes opportunities happen. Although I have no idea what I would do if such opportunity were to arise at the end of my life, I think its fair to make it a choice.

I agree with the second poster as well about the rules not being so arbitrary, the 15 day waiting period is longer than any state's gun waiting period. A statistic I would've really liked to see would have been how many people consulted with a religious leader over the question.

Lisa W. said...

If someone is suffering and is not going to live anyways, why shouldn’t they have the choice of ultimately relieving their pain and suffering, rather than been forced to wait and be miserable for the end of their days? As long as an individual makes an informed decision on their own, after following the proper safeguards, then I feel they have a right to have medical assistance in ending their suffering. While I have no idea what I would do if faced with that decision, I might however take comfort in knowing that I have options. People sign living wills everyday, giving others the power to decide for them, so in these circumstances one should have the right to reach that decision on their own.

GC said...

leaving out religion altogether: what would you do when your aged parent, with a prognosis of less than 6 month's left to live and thus a terminal diagnosis, decides they want your support?
how will it feel to you, seeing your parent at that point still alive, drink a beverage that you know will kill them?
by taking away the element of chance, which has often intervened in peoples' illnesses, we take away life itself. when there's no hope for life, is hoping for death better?