Log in

View Full Version : Suicide & Assisted Suicide = Choice



coda
26th May 2007, 22:59
On Eve of Dr. Jack Kevorkian's Release, Only Oregon Has an Assisted Suicide Law
By KATHY BARKS HOFFMAN

Associated Press Writer
(AP) 05:23:04 PM (ET), Saturday, May 26, 2007 (LANSING, Mich.)

For nearly a decade, Dr. Jack Kevorkian waged a defiant campaign to help other people kill themselves.

The retired pathologist left bodies at hospital emergency rooms and motels and videotaped a death that was broadcast on CBS' "60 Minutes." His actions prompted battles over assisted suicide in many states.

But as he prepares to leave prison June 1 after serving more than eight years of a 10- to 25-year sentence in the death of a Michigan man, Kevorkian will find that there's still only one state that has a law allowing physician-assisted suicide _ Oregon.

Experts say that's because abortion opponents, Catholic leaders, advocates for the disabled and often doctors have fought the efforts of other states to follow the lead of Oregon, where the law took effect in late 1997.

Opponents defeated a measure in Vermont this year and are fighting similar efforts in California. Bills have failed in recent years in Hawaii, Wisconsin and Washington state, and ballot measures were defeated earlier by voters in Washington, California, Michigan and Maine.

Kevorkian's release could spur another round of efforts, if only to prevent anyone else from following his example.

"One of the driving forces of the (Oregon) law was to prevent the Jack Kevorkians from happening," said Kate Davenport, a communications specialist at the Death with Dignity National Center in Portland, Ore., which defended Oregon's law against challenges.

"It wasn't well regulated or sane," she said. "There were just too many potential pitfalls."

Kevorkian, 79, was criticized even by assisted suicide supporters because of his unconventional practices.

He used a machine he'd invented to administer fatal drugs and dropped off bodies at hospital emergency rooms or coroner's offices, or left them to be discovered in the motel rooms where he often met those who wanted his help.

At the time, some doctors didn't want to give dying patients too much pain medication, fearing they'd be accused of hastening death.

Oregon law allows only terminally ill, mentally competent adults who can self-administer the medication to ask a physician to prescribe life-ending drugs, and they must make that request once in writing and twice orally.

Oregon's experience shows that only a tiny percentage of people will ever choose to quicken their death, said Sidney Wanzer, a retired Massachusetts doctor who has been a leader in the right-to-die movement.

From the time the law took effect in 1997 until the end of last year, 292 people asked their doctors to prescribe the drugs they would need to end their lives, an average of just over 30 a year. Most of the 46 people who used the process last year had cancer, and their median age was 74, according to a state report.

Experts say the attention on assisted suicide has helped raise awareness caring for the terminally ill.

"End-of-life care has increased dramatically" in Oregon with more hospice referrals and better pain management, says Valerie Vollmar, a professor at Oregon's Willamette University College of Law who writes extensively on physician-assisted death.

Opponents and supporters of physician-assisted death say more needs to be done to offer hospice care and pain treatment for those who are dying and suffering from debilitating pain.

"The solution here is not to kill people who are getting inadequate pain management, but to remove barriers to adequate pain management," said Burke Balch, director of the Powell Center for Medical Ethics at the National Right to Life Committee, which opposes assisted suicide.

"We need to come up with better solutions to human suffering and human need," Balch said.

More end-of-life care is needed, but doctors should have a right to assist those who ask for their help in dying, Wanzer said.

"There are a handful of patients who have the best of care, everything has been done right, but they still suffer. And it's this person I think should have the right to say, `This is not working and I want to die sooner,'" Wanzer said.

Kevorkian has promised he'll never again advise or counsel anyone about assisted suicide once he's out of prison. But his attorney, Mayer Morganroth, said Kevorkian isn't going to stop pushing for more laws allowing it.

The state wants to go after money that Kevorkian makes following his release to help cover the cost of his incarceration. Morganroth has said his client has been offered as much as $100,000 to speak. Many of those speeches are expected to be on assisted suicide.

"It's got to be legalized," Kevorkian said in a phone interview from prison aired by a Detroit TV station on Monday. "I'll work to have it legalized. But I won't break any laws doing it."

On the Net:

Death With Dignity National Center: http://www.deathwithdignity.org

Vollmar's physician-assisted suicide Web site: http://www.willamette.edu/wucl/pas/index.htm

National Right to Life Committee: http://www.nrlc.org

To Die Well: http://www.todiewell.com


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

TC
30th May 2007, 00:16
I don't think that it goes far enough to say that terminally ill people should be able to seek assisted suicide...anyone who feels the remainder of their life isn't worth living and they'd rather not, should be able to. No one has any buisness in telling someone what they can and can't do with their own bodies and to make someone live who does not want to is to use them as a means to social satisfaction rather than their own.

If someone for instance, has a debilitating but not terminal condition, whose quality of life is as severely compromised as many who are terminally ill, why should the fact that their state of misery is indefinate rather than time limited be an argument against their need for assisted suicide as an option? If anything they would have a more understandable need for it than someone whose condition was terminal.

Liberals who aren't serious about human and personal rights might wonder about people doing it for the wrong reason or the message it would show if patients were allowed to kill themselves over things that doctors and family members would tell them to just get through, but this is not a view of people as personally responsible and autonomous agents. Once its clear that it is someones decision, the belief that they could be making the "wrong" choice is not a legitimate reason to deprive them of it, the right to choose is always the right to choose for oneself contrary to the wishes of others for you. Otherwise it is a false choice.

LSD
5th June 2007, 11:13
As far as I see it, this issue really shouldn't be controversial at all. That said, though, this thread does serve at least one useful purpose.

"Assisted suicide" isn't a particularly major issue, that is it affects only a very few number of people (those who wish to die but are unable to actualize that desire themselves), but it is a rather useful academic excersize insofar as measuring one's position with regards to human rights.

'Cause if you object to this man, or any other, helping someone die, then you do not support human rights.

That's not to say that there isn't a risk of abuse inherent to any euthenasia programme; whenever issues of permenanence are at hand, the highest care must of course be made.

But just as how alchoholism is not a sufficient defence of prohibition, neither is the risk of masked murder a sufficient defence of government suppression in this matter.

I'm speaking only for myself here of course, but as I see it, the above reasoning is a fundamental possession of anyone legitimately calling themselves a "leftist".

Because if you don't respect that most basic human freedom, how can you possibly profess to support revolutionary insurrection?

apathy maybe
5th June 2007, 14:04
Indeed. If we have a right to life, the surly we also have a right to die.

And it goes beyond those who are ill or old. The right to die extends to everyone who wants it. And if they need or want help, then those who help should not be condemned for helping.

After all, we do not condemn those who help another with their "right to free speech", or whatever.

(See also the thread in OI about suicide pills for troubled teens. Including some quotes near the end of the thread by another doctor.)

RedAnarchist
5th June 2007, 15:03
People need to have the right to die. Why should religious morality and capitalist laws get in the way of someones wishes (unless of course your government wishes you to die in conflict, then its a totally different matter).

TC
5th June 2007, 15:15
i don't think theres a 'right to die' or a 'right to live' as much as there is a right to personal autonomy and that right typically entails a right to choose on these issues.

To talk of more specific arbitrary rights as distinct from this is wrong...

...like i don't think people actually have a "right to live" in the abstract. I dont' think that getting aggressive cancer for instance violates your "right to life", thats a scenario where rights don't exist...and there are many instances where someone can only live but depriving others of things and i don't think they have a right to life in those situations (i mean, an absolute right to life might say that someone has a 'right' to skip people higher up on the organ donar list).

Thats why this needs to be understood in terms of personal autonomy.

Vanguard1917
5th June 2007, 17:05
The legalisation of euthanasia should be opposed for two key reasons (as i pointed out in this thread (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=49932&hl=Euthanasia) last year in relation to proposed 'right to die' bill in the UK):

1. A very ill person is often not in the right frame of mind to make a rational judgement on the value of his or her life. That is why it is very important for family, friends and doctors to support the patient through illness and keep the patient fighting the illness - regardless of the nature of the illness.

2. The ultimate aim of a medical institution should always be to save or prolong the patients life. Euthanasia, i.e. killing the patient, should never be a third option. This is not only against medical ethics, it will help hold back medical progress in the longer-term.

LSD
5th June 2007, 21:03
The legalisation of euthanasia should be opposed for two key reasons

I really can't get a handle on your politics, Vanguard. On the one hand you contend that the criminalization of child molestation grants the bourgeois state too much power, and yet on the other you are proposing that that same state be granted the authority to lock people up merely for assisting someone who wants to die.

Do you really not see the obvious contradiction there?

If you oppose any and all expansions of state power then surely you must oppose that expansion into the most basic of human freedoms, our fundamental personal autonomy.


A very ill person is often not in the right frame of mind to make a rational judgement on the value of his or her life.

True enough, but then many people are not in the "right frame of mind" at many times. That doesn't mean we strip them of their basic human right to personal autonomy.

Tell me, what are your thoughts on a patients right to refuse treatment? After all, he's probably not "in the right frame of mind", he may well not be "making a rational judgement".

Are you therefore in favour of strapping him to a bed and forcing an IV into his arm?

And what about drug addicts, should they be forcible "detoxed" whether they like or not? Again, they're almost certainly not being "rational" in their choices...

Where does this end? At what point do you draw the line and say whatever "frame of mind" someone may or may not be in, they're an adult human being with a working brain and have the right to choose for themselves.

Well I'll tell you where I draw it, right at the beginning.

Because whatever someone's "frame of mind" might be, the mere fact of being diagnosed with a terminal illness does not somehow magically deprive them of their individual sovereignty.

And while you or I may well disagree with the choices they make, it still remains their choice to make. And neither you nor your friends in blue have any right to tell them otherwise.


The ultimate aim of a medical institution should always be to save or prolong the patients life. Euthanasia, i.e. killing the patient, should never be a third option. This is not only against medical ethics

The ultimate aim of a medical institution should be to treat the patient, whatever that means in the context.

In some situations that means prolonging life, in others it means merely managing pain, in others it may well mean ending it early. It really depends on the situation and the choices of the person themselves.

And as for "medical ethics", like any other professional code it is subject to evolving standards of morality, as well it should be. After all, I would remind you that the original "hypocratic oath" contained a specific condemnation and renunciation of abortion.

I suppose that means that we should reject abortion based on grounds of "medical ethics"?


it will help hold back medical progress in the longer-term.

OK, I'll bite. How in the hell will allowing people to decide for themselves if they want to live or die going to "hold back medical progress" in the short, long, or any other term?

Seriously, I'm fascinated at how you could make such a patently absurd proclamation.

Do you know what "holds back medical progress" Vanguard? When people start inserting their "morals" into it, when they start criminalizing medical procedures on grounds of "saving lives" or "presrerving sanctity".

If you were diagnosed with a terminal illness you may well want to fight it 'till the end, I imagine that I would do the same. But that doesn't grand either of us the right to tell someone else what decision they should make.

Certainly the state does not have the right to threaten them or those who assist them with imprisonment and abuse. And the fact that you would so callously defend this obvious excess of bourgeois moralism reveals just how bankrupt your politcal paradigm really is.

Vanguard1917
6th June 2007, 01:40
LSD, i agree that this is a quite contentious issue; there are a lot of points to be taken into consideration. There was a fair amount of debate around it last year in the UK, triggered by the proposed Assisted Dying Bill in the House of Lords. I can refer people to a few thought-provoking articles from that debate which may be of some interest:

Assisted dying should be legalised (http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/1191/)
A representative of the Voluntary Euthanasia Society responds to criticisms of the Assisted Dying for the Terminally Ill Bill made on spiked.

Choose death (http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/2177/)
A Bill being debated in the UK parliament would tell the terminally ill that they're better off dead.

In search of a 'good death' (http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/2796/)
More people may support the 'right to die', but they often change their views when their own time comes.

The ‘right to die’? No thanks (http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/207/)
The campaign to legalise assisted suicide cheapens and devalues human life - and makes death an even more protracted process.

Death is not a solution to the problems of living (http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/2444/)
spiked editor Mick Hume in The Times (London), on voluntary euthanasia for the depressed.

TC
6th June 2007, 02:35
More people may support the 'right to die', but they often change their views when their own time comes.


What a profoundly misleading title.

I believe (although i don't know because i'm not in that situation) that if i had a debilitating terminal illness i would want doctors to do everything possible to prolong my life as long possible. To choose not to exercise a right to end your own life when "your time comes" is not to change your mind on the issue of personal freedom over such choices, its simply to make one choice rather than another. In fact, i would prefer, for sentimental reasons, that no one commit suicide, however, the fact that i would choose not to do it and i hope no one chooses to do it is in no way incompatible with demanding that everyone be unrestricted from having that choice for their own life.