{poll} Would you jump from a height without first looking to see where you might land?
Assisted Suicide, more accurately known as Doctor-Prescribed Suicide, is currently legal in the USA in only two states, Washington and Oregon. In August of 2011 the Suicide Lobby announced another attempt to gain a second American beachhead one of their long-term targets–Massachusetts. This attempt, if successful, would leave the other New England states and the rest of the country vulnerable.
Compassion and Choices (formerly The Hemlock Society) and the Death With Dignity Center, operating together under the alias “Dignity 2012,” have started a Ballot Initiative Petition effort to legalize prescribing lethal drugs to “terminal” patients for the purpose of suicide. Once the required 70,000 petition signatures have been gathered and submitted the law could be passed by the legislature or placed on the 2012 ballot to be decided upon directly by the voters. The second of these options is the most likely.
There are many serious problems with the law proposed in Petition 11-12, or indeed any law which advocates suicide as a solution to health issues. Three of the most serious issues arise from 1) the absence of witnesses at the time of death, 2) the lack of qualified control over the prescribed lethal substances once they have been dispensed, 3) the potential involvement of heirs in the process.
The absence of witnesses means that there is no disinterested third party observing the patient’s final moments. There is no assurance of voluntary self-administration of legal drugs nor is there any protection against involuntary administration. Assisted suicide advocates may claim that they want safe-guards in place, and perhaps they do, but the fact remains that there are no meaningful provisions in the bill which protect patients at the crucial final moment.
The lack of control over the dangerous substances provided for the patient’s suicide will often mean that the drugs are still in the possession of family members or care-givers long after the patient has lost the ability to choose to self-administer the dose. A failure to decide to end one’s life would seem to be a decision, but long-term care-givers are human can become frustrated or overwhelmed–leaving the drugs in their possession creates a temptation to “end the suffering” of the patient without his consent.
The fact that heirs and other financially interested parties can be involved in the decision-making process is an invitation to elder abuse and coercion. There are more ways to exert undue influence than physical force, especially when dealing with the elderly and infirm. People suffering from serious illnesses are often very tired and emotionally drained; that can be badgered or bullied into submission. Interest plus opportunity equals temptation. Unless we believe that every financially effected person around the chronically unwell is moral and trustworthy, it is foolhardy to adopt a measure such as the “Death with Dignity” Act without proper controls in place. Assisted suicide advocates are bringing forward a proposal which affects life and death decision making without including the basic protective measures required for signing a contract or writing a will.
There are, of course, numerous other reasons to oppose legalized Doctor-Prescribed Suicide in Massachusetts (for example, the lack of mandatory mental-health screening or the unreliability of “terminal” diagnoses) but the plain fact is that the measure proposed is a piece of highly ambiguous and imprudent legislation which will entail many unintended consequences. From the points explained above, a reasonable observer should conclude that Ballot Initiative Petition 11-12, while it purports to be aimed at increasing choices for dying patients, actually opens the door to widespread and abusive restriction of choice and danger to vulnerable lives.
The “Death with Dignity” bill is just too dangerous for Massachusetts. Let’s make the prudent choice.
