When my father was hospitalized and ultimately on his deathbed, my brother walked him through the “do not resuscitate” DNR form. Pop had never heard of such a thing.
My brother explained it to me and asked, “Pop, what do you want to do?”
Dad didn't even blink. He took one look at the paper and said, “Unplug and everyone have a drink.”
he wasn't suffering. He wasn't in pain. He was very clear. But he was in poor health, and after living such a rich life, even though he was a veteran and on Medicare, he thought he had a few more days to live. Spending money on expensive medical procedures was all too real. A few months. He was 90 years old.
That moment came back to me earlier this month after the news broke about Linda Bluestein, who had terminal cancer and ended her life by taking prescribed medication. Except that's not all.
Ten states allow medically assisted suicide. Connecticut, where Bluestein lived, is not among them. That's the case in Vermont, but Vermont had a residency requirement in what's called the End-of-Life Patient Selection and Management Act. If you do not live in Vermont, you cannot travel to Vermont from out of state to obtain a life-ending medical cocktail.
Mr. Bluestein sued, arguing that Vermont's residency requirement was unconstitutional. The state settled the case, and Bluestein was able to take advantage of the law and live out his life in Vermont. Shortly after, Vermont changed its law and became the first state in the country to eliminate residency requirements for terminally ill patients who wish to end their lives.
I was surprised to learn that only 10 states allow medically assisted suicide. What's even more surprising is that until Mr. Bluestein's lawsuit, states had prohibited out-of-state residents from taking advantage of this option. Prior to Vermont's decision, only Oregon allowed such access for nonresidents.
I'm also surprised that we're discussing personal decisions that are no one else's business at all. Perhaps it is too much for the holy ones to resist.
Advocates have begun to avoid the term “assisted suicide,” preferring terms such as “assisted dying,” “compassionate care,” and “death with dignity.” There is a better word: “freedom.”
Or, if you want to be sarcastic, you might say, “Mind your own business.”
Opponents of assisted suicide argue that actively ending a person's life, even if they are frail, is a moral violation. Whose morality? is it yours? What is so special about your choice, and especially when that choice has no effect on you, you impose it on someone you feel is doing what is in your best interest? Who is it?
In other words, who died and left you responsible. Pun intended.
Annoyingly, these interlopers tend to be identified as small-government conservatives and people with religious beliefs.
What does it mean that these conservatives want to control every aspect of our private lives while touting their love for small government? How many times have we cried out in our midst that we are tired of having the “gay agenda” pushed upon us? What difference does it make when moralists do the same thing on the issue of assisted suicide? Or—tell me now—abortion?
Moralists argue that every life is precious and we should endure the remaining months, even if it means excruciating pain. However, we treat terminally ill pets more humanely. Opponents of assisted suicide worry about those who may be harmed, but do not consider those who may be helped.
Some opponents argue that all categories of people, including the elderly, the poor, racial minorities, and the physically and mentally ill, are subject to family coercion or negligent doctors who are set up for assisted suicide. We have long argued that people may choose assisted suicide unnecessarily because they ignore the law and safeguards. Prevent abuse of custom.
It's all theory, speculation, and fear-mongering. Empirical data collected from jurisdictions where this practice is legal (10 U.S. states, Canada, Australia, and European countries) shows that claims of abuse are completely unfounded and that people who are believed to be being abused It was found that no evidence of an increased risk of Vulnerable. The data presented by opponents is “generally incomplete, often full of factual inaccuracies and distortions, and provides false empirical evidence for what is essentially a moral objection to the practice of physician-assisted dying.” “The aim is often to build a foundation,” said one bioethicist and philosophy professor. The University of Utah concluded:
In other words, they'll tell you whatever they need to, but they'll do it simply because they don't like the practice, not because they can prove that the practice is somehow flawed. These are fear tactics that have rhetorical power that exceeds their logical strength.
What's more, this argument is looking in the wrong direction through the telescope. If there is abuse, it is not because of legalized assisted suicide. It's the fault of the system that regulates it. Instead of abandoning the law entirely, fix it. We will not ban cars, firearms, or elections because of bad drivers, irresponsible gun owners, or people who don't vote (or lie about election results).
We worry about health care costs, but most of the expenses occur during the final months of life, when death is inevitable. We celebrate medical advances such as organ transplants that extend life beyond our “natural” lifespan. Why prohibit the option of using prepay to end a life that has become medically unsustainable?
How many people have faced more desperate moments than Robert Marquis? He cared for his dying brother Roger in 2015, a year before the California state legislature legalized physician-assisted suicide.
“I actually put a pillow over Roger's head because he was close to losing consciousness,” Robert told me. “But I thought, 'No, I can't do that.'”
For years, Roger has suffered from postherpetic neuralgia, a chronic, incurable disease that affects nerve fibers and the skin, turning simple touches into excruciating ordeals like severe burns. Even when he's clothed, sleeping triggers unrelenting waves of intense pain. Although this condition is not fatal, the constant pain is so torture that you wish you were dead.
It was a decisive blow when Roger's wife died of cancer, leading to so-called “failure to thrive,” a condition of gradual decline in health usually caused by medical problems such as chronic illness. With the help of a pastor, Robert was eventually able to get his brother into hospice care, where he simply disappeared.
“Roger was in constant pain, crying, bleeding and unable to sleep,” Robert said. “One time, he finally said to me, 'When you can't communicate with anyone, just put a pillow over your head. Make sure it's done. I don't want to be a vegetable.' It is.”
“The most humane thing in the world was to do that,” Robert said. “I wanted to do that in the worst possible way.”
What stopped him was the possibility of being discovered and tried for murder. Perhaps the jury would have acquitted him out of compassion, he says, but “it would have been a nightmare to even go to court.”
This issue seems to have been resolved in the minds of the people. A 2018 Gallup poll found that 72% of participants supported and supported legislation that would allow physician-assisted suicide. Why it remains illegal in 40 of the country's 50 states is a mystery.
We talk a lot about individual freedom in this country. we appreciate it. Yet we deny it to those who seek personal agency. This is because it undermines the position of some nannies who claim a higher moral ground according to their interpretation.
“Death with dignity” does not mean being allowed to die. It's about having the freedom to choose when and how. You are not completely free until you are free to choose when you die.
