Thaddeus Pope writes about the American Academy of Neurology (AAN) dropping its longtime opposition to legislation giving terminally ill patients the option of medical aid in dying (MAID). In addition, he identifies numerous local, state, regional, and national medical-related groups that have now taken a neutral position on MAID or endorsed its use.
In my last post, I discussed some general propositions about Voluntarily Stopping Eating and Drinking (VSED). In this post, I look at some VSED issues in greater detail.
I learned that VSED doesn’t have to be a horrible way to hasten one’s death. With proper care, it can be done without pain or distress. The first two or three days are sometimes the most difficult because of hunger pangs and thirst. The hunger is easy to control if one has access to pain medication. The thirst can be ameliorated with proper oral care, such as judicious use of ice chips, rinses, and lubricating gels.
This National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine sponsored a workshop last week that was intended to explore the evidence base and research gaps relating to the implementation of the clinical practice of allowing terminally ill patients to access life-ending medications with the aid of a physician. The workshop examined what is known, and unknown, about how physician-assisted death is practiced and accessed in the United States; it was not to be a focus of the workshop to discuss at length the moral or ethical arguments for or against the practice of physician-assisted death. It was billed as a neutral space to facilitate dialogue in order to help inform ongoing discussions between patients, their providers, and other health care stakeholders. What follows is a report on that workshop.
In 2017, the District of Columbia (DC) became the seventh jurisdiction in the United States to legalize medical aid in dying, which gives terminally ill patients the option of how and when they die. The new DC statute is nearly identical to earlier enacted medical aid in dying statutes in California, Colorado, Oregon, Vermont, and Washington State. Only Montana legalized medical aid in dying through a court decision, but subsequently, proponents of the act have failed in every attempt to legalize medical aid in dying through constitutional or statutory litigation.
[NOTE: Because of a problem with a component of the website, I am re-publishing this post today. A new post will appear in the in-boxes of subscribers Monday. I had hoped we would get some comments or feedback about this post.]
In Part 1, I discussed the state of death with dignity (DWD) laws in the United States and suggested eliminating the “six months to live” criterion. Here in Part 2, I discuss the Canadian example, other suggestions that may ease some restrictions of death with dignity acts (DWDAs), and add an important precaution that should help protect vulnerable people and provide better medical services.
This week’s post is a checklist of 21 major end-of-life decisions by John Abraham, author of “How To Get The Death You Want — A Practical and Moral Guide” (2017, Upper Access Press) and on Amazon
Contact: JohnWithFEN@earthlink.net
Web site: www.DeathAndDyingHelp.com
Oregon’s Death With Dignity Act (DWDA), implemented in 1998, was a monumental step forward in pursuing the primary goal of permitting those suffering from illness or disease to hasten their own death. But its advocates realized that, out of political necessity, it was not a universally applicable law, covering everyone in need. And the DWDA did not assure that all people have excellent medical care to meet their needs, though Oregon did dramatically improve palliative care in the state, diminishing the need for many people to make use of the DWDA.
Most objectors to the right to die stand on religious grounds, claiming that God gave life and only God can take life away. Also, any deliberate ending of life is breaking the sixth commandment and therefore a mortal sin. Life is sacred and must be preserved at all costs, only God can decide when and how our lives will end, and Christians are supposed to suffer because it allows them to empathize with Jesus’ suffering.
This interpretation of the sixth commandment is, in fact, wrong.
Whenever I read the arguments of opponents of Medical Aid In Dying (MAID), one that constantly crops up is a religious appeal to how precious life is. For example, “Every day is a gift from God, and you can’t ever let that go.” That is a faith statement. I may agree with it or I may not. It may rise out of the writer’s religious faith, but that doesn’t mean it applies to mine. And religious faith should never be a basis for making public policy. Otherwise, we will have one person’s religion controlling all others – something our founders absolutely opposed.
