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

11.25 Is Harvard Unfair to Asian-Americans?

11.25 Naomi Klein Lays Bare the Conflict Between Capitalism and the Climate

11.19 How DNA Is Reshaping How We See Ourselves—and Our History

11.18 Lobbying Used to Be a Crime: A Review of Zephyr Teachout’s New Book on the Secret History of Corruption in America

Letters
Open Letters:

Ref. : Letters to the editor

Health Care & Environment

11.25 Acid Rain Has Turned Canadian Lakes into a Kind of Jelly

11.25 Obama’s climate change envoy: fossil fuels will have to stay in the ground

11.24 Vancouver Experiments With Prescription Heroin

11.24 The Downside of the Boom

11.24 World bank to focus future investment on clean energy

11.23 The Piecemeal Assault on Health Care

11.23 NRG Seeks to Cut 90% of Its Carbon Emissions

11.23 Stampeding Black Elephants

News Media

11.24 Are Americans “Stupid” or Uninformed?

Daily FAIR Blog
The Daily Howler

Justice Matters

11.25 University of Virginia’s Image Suffers After Campus Rape Report

11.25 A Rape on Campus: A Brutal Assault and Struggle for Justice at UVA

11.22 Suffer Little Children

11.21 Icelandic bankers jailed for reckless loans made before crash

US Politics, Policy & Culture

11.25 Self-Segregation: Why It's So Hard for Whites to Understand Ferguson

11.25 The Gospel of Rudy Giuliani

11.25 Wave of violent civil unrest grips Ferguson after grand jury decision [videos]

11.24 The politics of infrastructure [video w/ads and transcript]

11.23 Grenade launchers, armored personnel carriers, and a military-grade helicopter among the lethal arsenal of police force who helped patrol Ferguson [photos]

11.22 Immigration Enriches You and Me

11.22 The United States of Thanksgiving [Interactive: click '+' sign for full recipes]

11.21 Ferguson Protests Are Coming to Your City

11.21 The U.S. government thinks China could take down the power grid

11.21 Obama on immigration: 'We are and always will be a nation of immigrants'

High Crimes?

11.22 Senate Democrats Clash With White House on C.I.A. Torture Report

Economics, Crony Capitalism

11.23 Top incomes soared as tax rates fell

11.23 Full Show: How Public Power Can Defeat Plutocrats [25:25 video and transcript]

11.22 Bill Black: Why the New York Fed Isn’t Trustworthy

11.22 Elizabeth Warren Blasts New York Fed President William Dudley [12:53 video]

11.22 Attorneys General for Sale

11.20 WSJ Reports: Bank of North Dakota Outperforms Wall Street

11.20 Elizabeth Warren Blasts FHFA’s Mel Watt: “You Haven’t Helped a Single Family” [5:23 video]

International
US air strikes in Syria driving anti-Assad groups to support Isis

11.24 'Mumbai is on the verge of imploding'

11.24 Israeli cabinet approves legislation defining nation-state of Jewish people

11.21 We need a new law to protect our wildlife from critical decline

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: