Newspaper logo  
 
 
  The Fraud of Physician-Assisted Suicide

SPEAKING OUT:

The Fraud of Physician-Assisted Suicide

by Sheldon Richman

How can there be "death with dignity" when the patient must humbly petition the doctors, then meekly wait for a unanimous ruling?
Freedom is so little understood in this "land of the free" that it is often confused with its opposite. Case in point: Oregon's 1994 Death With Dignity Act, which a federal appeals court recently shielded from attack by US Attorney General John Ashcroft.

The law permits what has come to be known as physician-assisted suicide. It and the appellate ruling have been hailed as victories for patient autonomy and the right to commit suicide. Indeed, the New York Times, in praising the ruling, editorialized. "The voters of Oregon acted with great humanity when they decided to allow terminally ill people to determine when they have suffered enough."

But did the voters really do that? A closer look at the law shows they did not.

In fact the law lets a patient who is expected to die within six months ask his doctor for lethal drugs. The doctor can say no, as he has every right to do. But since a patient cannot end his own life without the doctor's consent, the law is no milestone on the road to individual freedom.

What happens when a patient makes such a request of his doctor? The state's requirements are "stringent," according to Dr. Peter Goodwin, a long-time family physician and an emeritus associate professor in the Department of Family Medicine at Oregon Health and Science University. They include, Goodwin writes, "the attending physician's diagnosis/prognosis and determination that the patient is informed, capable and acting voluntarily."

Note that the attending physician must be convinced that the patient knows what he's doing. Whether or not you think doctors have a special ability to see the absence of volition in an action (I don't), this requirement is hardly consistent with "allow[ing] terminally ill people to determine when they have suffered enough."

But there's more. The law states, "A consulting physician must examine the patient and the medical records and concur with the attending physician's diagnosis/prognosis and assessment of the patient."

Dr. Goodwin comments: "If the attending physician or the consulting physician thinks the patient may suffer from a psychological disorder causing impaired judgment, the physician must refer the patient for evaluation and counseling. No medication may be prescribed unless it is certain the patient's judgment is not impaired" (emphasis added).

Although these requirements are called "stringent," they are actually elastic and stacked against the patient. What terminally ill patient in great pain could not be said to have impaired judgment? What's the difference between a judgment that's impaired and one that clashes with the doctor's? In a conflict between a patient who sees no better future and wants to die and a physician (perhaps supported by the patient's family) who sees the future differently, who will prevail? The doctor, of course. Yet the law is considered a blow for patient autonomy. How can there be "death with dignity" when the patient must humbly petition the doctors, then meekly wait for a unanimous ruling?

Whatever one thinks of the legal merits of Attorney General Ashcroft's attempt to use federal anti-drug laws to thwart Oregon's voters, physician-assisted suicide is a fraud. As Dr. Thomas Szasz writes in his book Fatal Freedom: The Ethics and Politics of Suicide, "The term 'physician-assisted suicide' [PAS] is intrinsically mendacious. The physician is the principal, not the assistant. In the normal use of the English language, the person who assists another is the subordinate; the person whom he assists is his superior.... However, the physician engaging in PAS is superior to the patient: He determines who qualifies for the 'treatment' and prescribes the drug for it."

In other words, the Oregon law has nothing to do with the freedom of the individual and everything to do with the power of doctors. If freedom were the concern, we would simply repeal the drug and prescription laws, and recognize each adult's right to buy any kind of drugs.

Why empower doctors? Suicide isn't a medical issue. It's a moral issue.


Sheldon Richman is senior fellow at The Future of Freedom Foundation (fff.org) in Fairfax, Va., author of Tethered Citizens: Time to Repeal the Welfare State, and editor of The Freeman magazine.


Copyright © 2004 The Baltimore Chronicle. All rights reserved.

Republication or redistribution of Baltimore Chronicle content is expressly prohibited without their prior written consent.

This story was published on June 28, 2004.
 
Local News & Opinion

Ref. : Civic Events

Ref. : Arts & Education Events

Ref. : Public Service Notices

Travel
Books, Films, Arts & Education
Letters

Ref. : Letters to the editor

Health Care & Environment

02.12 Instead of Replacing Flint's Old Pipes, Why Not Just Build New Ones?

02.12 SoCalGas fixes gas leak that gushed methane into Los Angeles for 16 weeks

02.12 Toxic chemicals found in beached pilot whales in Scotland [ocean life dying from coal plant pollution...]

02.11 The Court Blocks Efforts to Slow Climate Change

02.10 Supreme court to block Obama's sweeping climate change plan

02.09 These microscopic phytoplankton can be seen from space. And they're disappearing rapidly.

02.09 Air pollution raises risk of death 'for decades after exposure'

02.08 Sailing ships back in vogue as a green alternative to conventional shipping [Cool! New ships to be automated—think motorized sails]

02.08 UN agency seeks to end rift on new aircraft emission rules

02.08 The deadly toll of city smog

02.08 Surge in privatisation threatening free NHS treatment, unions say

News Media Matters

02.12 America's School Teachers Are Confused About Climate Change

Daily: FAIR Blog
The Daily Howler

US Politics, Policy & 'Culture'

02.12 Henry Kissinger’s “mad and illegal” bombing: What you need to know about his real history — and why the Sanders/Clinton exchange matters

02.12 Even if Sanders wins the popular vote, Clinton could still get the nomination [disgraced establishment has its thumb on the scale]

02.11 Wingnuts have a death-grip on Congress: Why Paul Ryan can’t control the House GOP

02.11 Obama Celebrates Nine Years of Doing Nothing About Money in Politics [inaction proves his allegiance to the 'super-rich & corporate democrat party']

02.11 How Elizabeth Warren Helped Sanders Deflate Clinton's Massive Political Apparatus

02.10 Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump Ride the Populist Wave

02.10 5 takeaways from New Hampshire

02.10 David Brooks begins a conservative 12-step program — after eight years of giving right-wing looniness the cover of his respectability

Justice Matters

02.11 United States v. Ferguson

02.10 Texas prosecutor officially disbarred for sending innocent man to death row

02.10 Restoring Voting Rights for Felons in Maryland

High Crimes?
Economics, Crony Capitalism

02.10 The five fears stalking the global banking industry

02.10 Stock market rout intensifies amid fears central banks are 'out of ammunition'

02.09 Oil Dictator Dominos

02.09 Robert Reich: Democrats can’t give in to defeatism

02.09 'Panic situation': Asian stocks tumble amid fears of new global recession

02.09 What's holding back the world economy?

International

02.12 Russia Warns of ‘World War’ as Saudi Plans Syria Intervention

02.12 Partial Syria ceasefire agreed at talks in Munich

02.12 Morgan Stanley to pay $3.2bn over mortgage-backed securities

02.12 Stock markets hit by global rout raising fears for financial sector

02.11 Migrant crisis: Nato deploys Aegean people-smuggling patrols [why not provide ferry service to avoid the many drownings? Why not pay Greece—desperate for economic help—to provide camps?]

02.11 Israel: Friedman of the NY Times surrenders to One-State Solution, sees ME Apocalypse

02.11 Let’s End the Peril of a Nuclear Winter

02.11 How to Build a Streetcar That Works

02.10 Netanyahu plans fence around Israel to protect it from 'wild beasts'

We are a non-profit Internet-only newspaper publication founded in 1973. Your donation is essential to our survival.

You can also mail a check to:
Baltimore News Network, Inc.
P.O. Box 42581
Baltimore, MD 21284-2581
Google
This site Web


Public Service Ads: