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.