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

01.25 7 heinous lies “American Sniper” is telling America

01.25 American Sniper: anti-Muslim threats skyrocket in wake of film's release

01.23 'American Sniper' Is Almost Too Dumb to Criticize

Letters
Open Letters:

Ref. : Letters to the editor

Health Care & Environment

01.25 Obama's India visit: Hopes for clean energy and climate deals

01.24 Smog journeys: A short film about air pollution in China – video

01.24 The oceans are warming so fast, they keep breaking scientists' charts

01.24 Climate change inaction pushes 'doomsday clock' closest to midnight since 1984

01.24 Swedish school sheds light on dark days of winter

01.23 Life in the Sickest Town in America

01.23 Brazil’s worst drought in history prompts protests and blackouts

01.22 Gates foundation annual letter: what do you think of their vision?

01.22 Al Gore: oil companies 'use our atmosphere as an open sewer'

News Media

01.24 Joni, al-Qaida and rich folks: Fox News has a simple playbook for everything Obama says

Daily FAIR Blog
The Daily Howler

US Politics, Policy & Culture

01.25 The Tragedy of the American Military

01.25 Six ways the US is building a people-powered economy

01.25 The Republican abortion bill shows they still believe many women lie about rape

01.23 Removing the Social Security Tax Cap Would Benefit Most Workers [8:14 video & transcript]

01.23 Will Democrats Spoil Obama's Trade Initiatives?

01.23 Tom Engelhardt: More and War – The Tao of Washington

01.23 Republicans drop abortion vote after revolt by female House members

Justice Matters

01.23 Obama Has Sentenced Whistleblowers to 25 Times the Jail Time of All Prior U.S. Presidents COMBINED

High Crimes?

01.22 CIA torture report architect denounces Republican attempt to claw back copies [Like Texas 'history' books, Republicans try to hide truth about Bush-Cheney torture]

Economics, Crony Capitalism

01.25 The Davos oligarchs are right to fear the world they’ve made

01.25 All economic activity needs a moral compass

01.24 America's Losing the Currency War

01.23 KKR’s Botched Document Cover-Up Reveals Washington Public Pension Fund Cronyism

01.22 US tech giants launch fierce fightback against global tax avoidance crackdown

International

01.24 How the CIA made Google: Inside the secret network behind mass surveillance, endless war, and Skynet—part 1 [part 2]

01.24 Greece’s solidarity movement: ‘it’s a whole new model – and it’s working’

01.24 Democrats rally around Obama amid furore over Netanyahu Congress visit

01.23 Terror from the Fringes: Searching for Answers in the "Charlie Hebdo" Attacks

01.23 Guantanamo Prisoner Diary: 'We're Gonna Teach You About Great American Sex'

01.23 #notinmyname: German Muslims Fear Backlash after Paris Attacks

01.23 Death in the city: the grisly secrets of dealing with Victorian London's dead

01.22 Obama to GOP: More Iran sanctions lead to War (& 7 other Foreign Policy points in SOTU)

01.22 Netanyahu Imported by GOP to ensure Iran War

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: