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 Gov’t Stories, Events

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

06.27 This City Is Home to 820 Urban Farms and Quickly Becoming America’s Urban Ag Capital

06.27 Global air pollution crisis 'must not be left to private sector'

06.26 New pain drug being developed at University of Maryland could offer relief without addiction [a non-addicting, legally prescribed opioid drug would greatly reduce crime and and improve public health]

06.26 German government agrees to ban fracking after years of dispute

06.26 Coal-Plant Retirements in New England Have ‘Opened the Door’ for Alternatives

06.24 UK's out vote is a 'red alert' for the environment

06.24 66 million dead trees in California could fuel 'catastrophic' wildfires, officials say

06.22 Republicans Offer a Plan to Replace Obamacare

06.22 Women Take Over the Family Farm

06.22 Our new alliance unites 600m city dwellers in fight against climate change

06.22 California's last nuclear plant to close amid longstanding earthquake concerns

News Media Matters

Daily: FAIR Blog
The Daily Howler

US Politics, Policy & 'Culture'

06.27 Fear, loathing and firearms: sensory overload inside the NRA's Mall of Death

06.27 Cracks deepen inside troubled marriage of Trump and Republican party

06.27 Decrying 'Jim Crow 2.0,' Advocates Demand Updated Voting Rights Before Election

06.27 Landmark Survey Finds Special Interests are Pouring Money into Local Elections

06.27 Betraying Progressives, DNC Platform Backs Fracking, TPP, and Israel Occupation

06.26 Mapping the Rise of Anti-LGBT Legislation on the First Anniversary of Nationwide Marriage Equality

06.26 Draft of Dems' policy positions reflects Sanders' influence

06.24 What It Will Take to Gain My Support in 2020

06.22 THE WOMAN CARD

06.22 How American Politics Went Insane

06.22 MAKING A KILLING

06.22 America's gun problem is so much bigger than mass shootings

06.22 Insult, provoke, repeat: how Donald Trump became America's Hugo Chávez

Justice Matters

06.24 Experts ask for new investigation into disappearance of 43 Mexican students

High Crimes?

06.21 THE SHADOW DOCTORS

Economics, Crony Capitalism

06.26 Coal Industry on the Brink in Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico and Utah

International

06.27 First ship sails through newly expanded Panama canal

06.27 Post-referendum chaos shows the inadequacy of our political class

06.27 $4 Indian smartphones 'will ship this week'

06.27 AFGHANISTAN’S THEORIST-IN-CHIEF

06.26 What's the British Equivalent of 'Moving to Canada'?

06.26 BREXIT MAKES THE U.S. THE LAST, BEST HOPE FOR LIBERALISM

06.24 Britain has voted to leave the EU – what happens next?

06.24 Nicola Sturgeon prepares for second Scottish independence poll

06.24 European far right hails Britain's Brexit vote

06.24 David Cameron resigns after UK votes to leave European Union [videos]

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: