Most of us have wondered at one point or another, if I were to get in a terrible accident and was in a great amount of pain, would it be better to die and end the suffering? If I were to become terminally ill with only 6 months left to live, would it be better to die before my disease takes over my life? These situations and more are reality too many people; so many in fact, that new laws are trying to be passed in order to make it legal to have a physician assist you in suicide. However, this law is extremely controversial because its dealing with life, something considered sacred to most people. Although in America all should have the freedom to choose, is helping someone commit suicide morally right? My opinion of the issue is that this law should not be passed, because there is too much room for corruption and abuse, there is too much confusion over who this law is even applying to, and there are too many other options for terminally ill patients that it is just wrong for them to need to kill themselves.
With any new law, there are going to be those people who try and twist its meaning for their benefit. There could be issues with people trying to collect on life insurance. Also there could be issues with family members, or even doctors trying to sway the decision of those who are dying. Ethically it is wrong to have a law which could be manipulated so easily. What happens to our society when it is morally acceptable for doctors to kill their patients? Although the Hippocratic Oath is no longer in use today, there are some things about medicine that should not change, including doctors trying their best to preserve the life of patients. The problem is though, that if more restrictions were put on the law that would make it even more unattainable to most patients who request it. This law would give false hope to many patients, who in the end will never receive the treatment they are looking for. That is why it would be better not to have this law in the first place, so patients can focus their attention on other alternatives.
There is much confusion to who this law is actually applying to, therefore its confusing whether or not this law will even be helpful. When most people think about assisted suicide they think about that patient that is in such terrible, chronic pain, aiding them in their death is the only merciful option. They think about that patient paralyzed from the neck down, and can no longer live a life on their own, and are relying on machines. They think about that old patient that is slowly losing all memories to Alzheimer’s, and going into advanced dementia. As it turns out, none of these patients would even be able to try and qualify for PAD. According to Robert Macauley, head of ethics for Fletcher Allen, “the proposed legislation would limit physician assisted death to competent, terminally ill patients, who could self administer the lethal dose of a pharmaceutical.” This means that PAD would be able to help only a small number of people. This could be seen as a good or bad thing. For those patients that actually have the option of PAS, only few will want to take advantage of that, and after that even fewer will live long enough to receive the medication. Based on the current size of Vermont’s population and statistics from Oregon, only one or two people a year would get an assisted death, according to Claire Wies, a hospice nurse. This brings up the question if all the legal issues are worth it for just those one or two people.
The last thing I would like to mention is all of the alternative options. When you see the situation with only two options being dying with dignity or living with pain, you’re missing a huge part of the debate. With how advanced medicine is today, there is no reason for these terminally ill patients to be in extreme pain. With how advanced technology is today, there is no real way to put an expiration date on someone’s life. Also, with great palliative and hospice care available, especially in Vermont, there are many ways to ease patients into the end of their lives naturally, all while maintaining their dignity. I spoke with Suzanna Urrutia, a woman whose husband died of cancer four years, and had received hospice care. She said that although the process was the hardest thing she’s ever been through, the amount physical and emotional support she got from Vermont palliative care and resources was immense, and she was glad her husband got a natural death. Her story helped me to realize that death is a natural thing. It shouldn’t have to be brought upon early to maintain dignity. There are ways for terminally ill patients to die peacefully with loved ones without any assistance.
By all means, I am not trying to say that people shouldn’t have the right to choose what they want to do with their lives (and deaths). I’m just saying that this law getting passed would end up leading to things it was not intended for. It would be subject to abuse, misuse, and a lot of misunderstanding around it. Also, we should try to promote non suicidal actions. Of course patients that are terminally ill will be feeling some depression. Perhaps they may feel like hastening their death will be an easy way out. If we could make them aware of the pain free options that offer more longevity, then they would be able to spend more time with their loved ones, and doctors would have to be obliged to killing. It may sound heartless for us not to grant terminally ill patients their last requests. It may ever seem like without this law we’re taking away their freedom. But the truth is, this law is just another Vermont could do fine without.
