Newspaper logo  
  The Fraud of Physician-Assisted Suicide


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 ( 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

Books, Films, Arts & Education

10.06 Teachers vs. Prisons

Open Letters:

Ref. : Letters to the editor

Health Care & Environment

10.08 Cars, aviation, steel ... the stranded assets risk spreads far beyond fossil fuel firms

10.08 How a Manmade Tidal Lagoon Could Change the Future of Clean Energy

10.08 L.A.'s New 'Energy Atlas' Maps Who Sucks the Most Off the Grid

10.07 California governor signs bill legalizing physician-assisted suicide

10.07 The Clean-Energy Moonshot

10.06 The 4 Kinds of People Who Don’t Vaccinate Their Kids

10.06 Seven practical steps to protect our cities from the effects of climate change

10.06 Chile to Create One of World’s Largest Marine Parks

10.06 Citigroup Becomes Third Major Bank to Cut Financing to Coal Industry

News Media Matters

Daily: FAIR Blog
The Daily Howler

US Politics, Policy & 'Culture'

10.08 Planned Parenthood's Cecile Richards: 'In this election, Roe v Wade is on the ballot'

10.08 'The goal is to be the winner': Donald Trump's campaign is for real

10.08 The Future of U.S. Voting May Be U.K. Technology

10.07 The Counted: 'Forced to fire'

10.07 Gun demanding: the psychology of why people want firearms

10.07 Bill Ackman's latest wager: Bloomberg for president

10.07 The Populist Prophet

10.06 Stephen Colbert to Donald Trump: ‘There Is Zero Chance’ You’ll Be President [7:58 video]

10.06 Watch John Oliver Explain Broken U.S. Mental Health System [11:54 video]

Justice Matters

10.08 Donald Trump takes campaign against windfarms to UK supreme court

10.08 Can California Prevent Wage Discrimination Against Women?

High Crimes?

10.06 U.S. General Says Afghans Requested Airstrike That Hit Kunduz Hospital

Economics, Crony Capitalism

10.08 Hillary Clinton Abandons Obama on Trade

10.07 The Corporate-Friendly World of the T.P.P.

10.07 The Good (and Bad) News About Poverty and Global Trade

10.06 Obama faces TPP deal balancing act as Congress considers approval


10.08 In the Montréal Area, 82 Municipalities Begin to Think and Act As One

10.08 All You Need Is Love [An old, true story with a timeless, powerful lesson]

10.08 Ready or Not, the Third Intifada May Be Here [Dear Netanyahu, read the story, above and ponder]

10.07 Nato’s bombs fall like confetti, not containing conflict but spreading it

10.07 Afghan hospital bombing: MSF demands investigation under Geneva conventions

10.07 Activists: Russia, Syria launch coordinated military attack on Assad opponents [2:13 video]

10.07 Boko Haram Has Killed 600 Nigerian Teachers, Displaced 19,000: Teachers Union [Why does the most barbaric behavior in the world have an Islamic basis?]

10.06 Will Istanbul’s new underwater highway just add traffic to a gridlocked city?

10.06 Israel demolishes homes of Palestinian attackers as clashes escalate

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
This site Web

Public Service Ads: