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

02.27 How to Make College Cheaper

Letters
Open Letters:

Ref. : Letters to the editor

Health Care & Environment

03.03 Air pollution will kill thousands in Europe, EEA warns

03.03 Scientists announce anti-HIV agent so powerful it can work in a vaccine

03.03 Ebola epidemic is 'wake-up call' for investment in universal healthcare

03.03 Water loss: seven things you need to know about an invisible global problem

03.03 Three to five cups of coffee a day may prevent heart attacks, says study

03.02 World's first lagoon power plants unveiled in UK [~1,000 comments]

03.02 Everything You've Been Told About Healthy Eating Is Wrong, Except This

03.02 Republicans Face A Choice on Obamacare

03.02 Pollution Documentary ‘Under the Dome’ Blankets Chinese Internet [1:43:55 video w/ English subtitles]

03.02 Under the sun: Australia's largest solar farm set to sprout in a Queensland field

03.02 Brazil's king of deforestation dethroned in drive to beat land clearers

News Media

Daily FAIR Blog
The Daily Howler

US Politics, Policy & Culture

03.03 Hillary Clinton's Contempt for Transparency

03.03 Hillary Clinton Used Personal Email Account at State Dept., Possibly Breaking Rules

03.02 Scott Walker Loses His Mind: What’s Behind His Delusional ISIS-Unions Comparison

03.02 Americans Turning Away From Organized Religion in Record Numbers

03.02 Fear Dominates Politics, Media and Human Existence in America—And It’s Getting Worse

02.28 Eight dead in Missouri shooting rampage at multiple crime scenes, police say

02.28 Texas school on lockdown after spate of apparently random shootings

02.28 Gun-rights advocates fight Obama over ban on 'military-grade' AR-15 bullets

Justice Matters

03.03 Reporting Sexual Abuse in the Military Is "Inherently Unfair." Here's Why.

02.28 Truth and reconciliation is coming to America from the grassroots

High Crimes?

02.27 Aid agencies sound alarm on Gaza amid fears rebuilding could take a century

Economics, Crony Capitalism

03.02 Christie Settles $9 Billion NJ Pollution Case Against Exxon for $250 Million

02.28 Giving Obama fits: The Elizabeth Warren way

International

03.03 The Science of Why Republicans Are Dead Wrong About Climate Change and National Security

03.03 Postwar Rape: Were Americans As Bad as the Soviets?

03.03 The Mystery of the Netanyahu Disaster, and a Possible Explanation

03.03 Noam Chomsky: Why Israel's Netanyahu Is So Desperate to Prevent Peace with Iran

03.02 Symposium: The Dynamics of Possible Nuclear Extinction — February 28 - March 1, 2015

03.02 Iraq begins assault on Islamic State strongholds north of Baghdad

02.28 What We Still Need To Learn From Spock's Utopianism

02.28 World leaders condemn muder of Russian opposition politician Boris Nemtsov

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: