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

08.27 The Con Artistry of Charter Schools

08.24 How the US Helped ISIS Grow Into a Monster

Letters
Open Letters:

Ref. : Letters to the editor

Health Care & Environment

08.28 If Not D.A.R.E., Then What?

08.28 Big power out, solar in: UBS urges investors to join renewables revolution

08.28 London to get hybrid buses that could charge wirelessly

08.28 Climate change mitigation a business opportunity for UK firms, Davey says

08.27 How Doctors See the Syrian Civil War

08.27 Obama Seeking Global Climate Accord in Lieu of a Treaty

08.27 Global warming is already here and could be irreversible, UN panel says

08.27 New coal power stations threat to EU’s emissions target

08.26 Hearings planned after call for nuke-plant closure

08.26 The 1,300 Bird Species Facing Extinction Signal Threats to Human Health

News Media

08.26 Why Rand Paul Is a Press Management Wizard

Daily FAIR Blog
The Daily Howler

Justice Matters

08.28 The Extreme Partisanship of John Roberts's Supreme Court

US Politics, Policy & Culture

08.28 'We're Like Animals To Them': An American City's Daily Racism

08.26 Cutting the Corporate Tax Would Make Other Problems Grow

08.26 Bullets and Ballots

08.25 Mike Brown’s shooting and Jim Crow lynchings have too much in common. It’s time for America to own up

08.25 The Effects of Chicago's Violence on Children: Best #Cityreads of the Week

08.24 Wilson supporters 'won't live in fear'

High Crimes?

08.24 Gaza highrises flattened by Israel

Economics, Crony Capitalism

08.26 Colonization by Bankruptcy: The High-stakes Chess Match for Argentina

08.26 Tax Dodge Used by Bain Escapes Scrutiny on Inversions

08.26 Amazon at odds with Germany over strong union tradition

08.25 ROBOTS ABLE TO PICK PEPPERS, TEST SOIL, AND PRUNE PLANTS AIM TO REPLACE FARM WORKERS

08.25 Burger King the Latest to Jump on the Corporate Tax Inversion Bandwagon

08.25 The Data Brokers: Selling your personal information [14:22 video]

08.25 How the web lost its way – and its founding principles

International

08.28 Ukraine Sees Russian Invasion as Rebel Assaults Intensify

08.28 The Procrastination Doom Loop—and How to Break It

08.28 Dueling Jihadists: Is the Islamic State Beating Al-Qaida?

08.28 Forgotten in Iraq: Besieged City Faces Destruction by the Islamic State

08.28 Factory and Lab: Israel's War Business

08.27 U.S. Mobilizes Allies to Widen Assault on ISIS Militants

08.27 Pentagon: Isis has global aspirations

08.26 Cutting the Corporate Tax Would Make Other Problems Grow

08.26 The Problem With Bombing ISIS

08.26 UAE and Egypt behind bombing raids against Libyan militias, say US officials

08.26 Friends of Israel

08.25 France thrown into political turmoil after government dissolved

08.25 Libyan capital under Islamist control after Tripoli airport seized

08.25 US: no ransom paid for journalist freed in Syria

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: