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

09.22 For-Profit Colleges as Factories of Debt

09.21 ‘Poor people don’t plan long-term. We’ll just get our hearts broken’

09.19 Texas proposes rewriting school text books to deny manmade climate change

Letters
Open Letters:

Ref. : Letters to the editor

Health Care & Environment

09.22 Bottom-Up Climate Fix

09.22 Rockefellers, Heirs to an Oil Fortune, Will Divest Charity From Fossil Fuels

09.22 Climate change marches: Kerry cites fight against Ebola and Isis as thousands join protests

09.22 De Blasio Orders a Greener City, Setting Goals for Energy Efficiency of Buildings

09.21 After Surgery, Surprise $117,000 Medical Bill From Doctor He Didn’t Know

09.21 Climate warning to world leaders: stick to 2C limit or face 'mayhem'

09.21 Desmond Tutu: We fought apartheid. Now climate change is our global enemy

09.21 Thousands join People's Climate March around the world – live

09.21 Climate change is a global emergency. Stop waiting for politicians to sound the alarm

09.21 US will not commit to climate change aid for poor nations at UN summit

09.20 Climate Change: The Next Generation [25:26 video]

09.20 These Stunning Photos of Greenland's "Dark Snow" Should Worry You

09.20 Artificial Sweeteners May Disrupt Body’s Blood Sugar Controls

09.19 Texas proposes rewriting school text books to deny manmade climate change

09.19 Jarvis Cocker: Do I Really Have to March?

News Media

09.19 How the Media Gets It Wrong

09.18 At Elite Media, ‘Scientific’ Racists Fit in Fine

Daily FAIR Blog
The Daily Howler

Justice Matters

09.20 Financial Criminals Have Been Fined Billions, but They Rarely Pay

09.20 Science’s Sexual Assault Problem

US Politics, Policy & Culture

09.22 How the GOP stopped caring about you

09.21 Spatial Justice: Rasquachification, Race and the City

09.20 "Washington Is a Cesspool of Faux-Experts Who Do Bad Research"

09.20 Does Hillary Clinton Have Anything to Say?

09.19 Police Have a Much Bigger Domestic Abuse Problem Than the NFL

09.19 Chris Christie lies yet again. Tells press conference that Sirota was fired by Pando over inaccuracies

High Crimes?
Economics, Crony Capitalism

09.20 5 Signs the Dark-Money Apocalypse Is Upon Us

09.20 Climate Change Is an Opportunity to Dramatically Reinvent the Economy

09.18 Bill Black: The New York Times’ Coverage of EU Austerity Remains Pathetic

09.18 The Deficit Disaster That Never Was [charts]

09.18 Hey, FCC: do your job and stand up for net neutrality, not Big Cable schemes

International

09.22 Fleeing ISIS, 130,000 Syrians Have Entered Turkey in Just Four Days

09.22 How Sugar Daddies Are Financing College Education

09.22 What Happens When We All Live to 100?

09.22 Why I Hope to Die at 75

09.22 In a Mattress, a Fulcrum of Art and Political Protest

09.22 Syrian Kurdish fighters halt Islamic State advance near Kobani

09.21 Germany's Ailing Infrastructure: A Nation Slowly Crumbles

09.21 Mikhail Khodorkovsky breaks political silence, saying he would lead Russia

09.21 Kurds call on 'all Middle East' to help defend stronghold from Isis

09.19 How Malawi Women Are Turning Waste Into Wealth

09.19 5 Key Themes Emerging From the 'New Science of Cities'

09.19 The rapid pace of technology is hollowing out the middle class

09.19 Scotland votes no: the union has survived, but the questions for the left are profound

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: