Click amount to donate direct to CounterPunch
  • $25
  • $50
  • $100
  • $500
  • $other
  • use PayPal
DOUBLE YOUR DONATION!
We don’t run corporate ads. We don’t shake our readers down for money every month or every quarter like some other sites out there. We provide our site for free to all, but the bandwidth we pay to do so doesn’t come cheap. A generous donor is matching all donations of $100 or more! So please donate now to double your punch!
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

Death with Pitfalls

According to a Field Poll in March, 70% of Californians favor physician-assisted suicide and 68% would want the option available to them if they had less than six months to live — at least in the abstract — when they’re healthy.

Support for such proposals fades when people consider the pitfalls, trade-offs and details of specific proposals. California’s prior “Death with Dignity” proposition started out with similar popular support but went down to a 54-46 defeat in 1992.

You’ve probably already heard most of the arguments in favor of Physician-Assisted Suicide — mercy killing, individual rights, “compassion.” However, people already have this “right.” Suicide is not illegal. The question is how easy and how legal should it be? And under what circumstances?

In theory physician-assisted suicide is intended to be compassionate, to alleviate suffering. No matter where you stand, you’ll have to concede that death, from whatever cause, is the end of suffering.

Now comes California’s latest physician-assisted suicide bill, AB654, the “California Compassionate Choices Act,” introduced by our assemblywoman, Patty Berg of Eureka.

Some of AB654’s general pitfalls are:

The bill says a person must have been diagnosed as terminal with less than six months to live to receive the lethal phenobarbital. But people can be and are misdiagnosed as terminal. In addition, many doctors admit to difficulty in assigning a specific time to a terminal condition.

The bill calls for patients to make an informed decision (twice) witnessed by two others, at least 15 days apart. In reality, many people with terminal conditions suffer suicidal thoughts when they first are diagnosed, but later recover, then go through ups and downs.

There’s no guarantee that the limited “safeguards” in the bill will be followed, especially in typical and common hospice care situations where the family is the primary caregiver.

We’d all like to think that family members of a terminal patient always have the patient’s best interest at heart. As ideal as that may sound, there are times when it’s just not the case. Families are complicated and can be contentious, especially under the stressful conditions associated with terminally ill family members. Motivations can range from altruistic to nefarious.

Which brings us to two uncomfortable issues specifically mentioned in AB654: coercion and insurance.

In the original draft of Ms. Berg’s bill there was the following provision:

“A person who coerces or exerts undue influence on a patient to request medication for the purpose of ending the patient’s life, or to destroy a rescission of such a request, shall be guilty of a felony.”

In the latest version of the bill that provision has been removed. No explanation was given. (Maybe because proving a felony isn’t that easy.) All that remains is a requirement that the patient sign a statement saying they are not being coerced.

Coercion and “undue influence” are hard enough to define in ordinary discourse, much less as a legal standard. What if the patient is told that they’re continued healthcare and medication is going to cost more than the family can afford? Is that “undue influence”?

What if the patient’s life insurance benefits will help another family member’s desperate financial problems? Would reminding the patient of that be “undue influence”? Are these the kinds of factors terminally ill people should consider?

What if the patient’s HMO tells the patient that their costly pain medication is not covered under their health insurance plan?

According to Ms. Berg’s bill, “suicide” by legal deadly prescription is not supposed to affect a patient’s life insurance. But Oregon’s assisted suicide website informs visitors that such coverage questions are up to the insurance carrier.

Oregon’s physician-assisted suicide website gives the following subjective and qualitative reasons that the 208 people who have used the law since its enactment in 1997 have given:

Losing autonomy (87%);

less able to engage in activities making life enjoyable (84%);

loss of dignity (80%);

losing control of bodily functions (59%);

burden on family, friends/caregivers (36%);

inadequate pain control or concern about it (22%);

financial implications of treatment (3%).

However, there’s no indication of when these “concerns” were expressed. Were they expressed when the person first asked for the phenobarbital, or were they expressed on the day the medication was taken?

Most of the terminal Oregonians using the law had cancer (more than 80%). Only five had AIDS.

But only 208 have used Oregon’s landmark assisted-suicide law in its first seven years. You can’t draw many conclusions from such low numbers. In fact, why go to such legal trouble and take so many risks in law if so few people are going to “benefit” from it?

Oregon doesn’t report on how many people applied for the lethal dosages, but changed their mind — only on actual suicides.

Then there are the doctors who are expected to prescribe the lethal dose.

A survey of Oregon physicians who did NOT oppose physician assisted suicide revealed the following concerns:

Half feared the attempt might fail and result in harm to the patient. (No information is kept/reported on this in Oregon.)

Half were not confident they could predict when a patient had less than six months to live. (And how can you know if the person commits suicide before the six months?)

One-third feared someone other than the patient would take the medication.

One-third were not confident they could recognize depression. (And what if the psychologist/psychiatrist determines the applicant is depressed and turns down the prescription?)

Some did not want to become known as “suicide doctors.”

Then there’s the Hippocratic Oath: “…Neither will I administer a poison to anybody when asked to do so, nor will I suggest such a course.” (Modern translation.) Can doctors ethically prescribe deadly doses? Can they be asked to do so?

Two American studies have shown that, among the elderly, those most vulnerable to the abuse of physician-assisted suicide — women, blacks, low-income people and poorly-educated people — fear the legalization of physician-assisted suicide.

More and more Americans who lack access to decent healthcare and support may be pushed into assisted death. In fact, assisted death can become a cost-containment strategy. (Texas’s “futile care” law which was signed into law by then-Governor George W. Bush specifically allows hospitals to declare patients hopelessly ill and in effect not worth keeping alive, irrespective of the patient’s and the family’s wishes.) Burdened family members and healthcare providers may encourage the option of “legal” assisted death — short of “undue influence,” of course.

In fact, it has been reported that some California hospitals have already set up committees to decide when care is “futile” and should be terminated regardless of a patient’s or a family’s wishes. There are disturbing stories of patients whose deaths have been hastened by these practices. Given the current and declining healthcare system, no law legalizing physician-assisted suicide, no matter how carefully crafted, can operate fairly.

Do we really want to take all these risks just so that a few terminal people can solve problems like being “less able to engage in activities making life enjoyable”?

MARK SCARAMELLA is the managing editor of the Anderson Valley Advertiser and a frequent contributor to CounterPunch. He can be reached at: themaj@pacific.net

.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

More articles by:

MARK SCARAMELLA is the Managing Editor of the Anderson Valley Advertiser in Mendocino County, California. (www.theava.com). He can be reached at themaj@pacific.net.

Weekend Edition
October 19, 2018
Friday - Sunday
Jason Hirthler
The Pieties of the Liberal Class
Jeffrey St. Clair
A Day in My Life at CounterPunch
Paul Street
“Male Energy,” Authoritarian Whiteness and Creeping Fascism in the Age of Trump
Nick Pemberton
Reflections on Chomsky’s Voting Strategy: Why The Democratic Party Can’t Be Saved
John Davis
The Last History of the United States
Yigal Bronner
The Road to Khan al-Akhmar
Robert Hunziker
The Negan Syndrome
Andrew Levine
Democrats Ahead: Progressives Beware
Rannie Amiri
There is No “Proxy War” in Yemen
David Rosen
America’s Lost Souls: the 21st Century Lumpen-Proletariat?
Joseph Natoli
The Age of Misrepresentations
Ron Jacobs
History Is Not Kind
John Laforge
White House Radiation: Weakened Regulations Would Save Industry Billions
Ramzy Baroud
The UN ‘Sheriff’: Nikki Haley Elevated Israel, Damaged US Standing
Robert Fantina
Trump, Human Rights and the Middle East
Anthony Pahnke – Jim Goodman
NAFTA 2.0 Will Help Corporations More Than Farmers
Jill Richardson
Identity Crisis: Elizabeth Warren’s Claims Cherokee Heritage
Sam Husseini
The Most Strategic Midterm Race: Elder Challenges Hoyer
Maria Foscarinis – John Tharp
The Criminalization of Homelessness
Robert Fisk
The Story of the Armenian Legion: a Dark Tale of Anger and Revenge
Jacques R. Pauwels
Dinner With Marx in the House of the Swan
Dave Lindorff
US ‘Outrage’ over Slaying of US Residents Depends on the Nation Responsible
Ricardo Vaz
How Many Yemenis is a DC Pundit Worth?
Elliot Sperber
Build More Gardens, Phase out Cars
Chris Gilbert
In the Wake of Nepal’s Incomplete Revolution: Dispatch by a Far-Flung Bolivarian 
Muhammad Othman
Let Us Bray
Gerry Brown
Are Chinese Municipal $6 Trillion (40 Trillion Yuan) Hidden Debts Posing Titanic Risks?
Rev. William Alberts
Judge Kavanaugh’s Defenders Doth Protest Too Much
Ralph Nader
Unmasking Phony Values Campaigns by the Corporatists
Victor Grossman
A Big Rally and a Bavarian Vote
James Bovard
Groped at the Airport: Congress Must End TSA’s Sexual Assaults on Women
Jeff Roby
Florida After Hurricane Michael: the Sad State of the Unheeded Planner
Wim Laven
Intentional or Incompetence—Voter Suppression Where We Live
Bradley Kaye
The Policy of Policing
Cesar Chelala
The Catholic Church Fails Sexual Abuse Victims
Kevin Cashman
One Year After Hurricane Maria: Employment in Puerto Rico is Down by 26,000
Dr. Hakim Young
Nonviolent Afghans Bring a Breath of Fresh Air
Karl Grossman
Irving Like vs. Big Nuke
Dan Corjescu
The New Politics of Climate Change
John Carter
The Plight of the Pyrenees: the Abandoned Guard Dogs of the West
Ted Rall
Brett Kavanaugh and the Politics of Emotion-Shaming
Graham Peebles
Sharing is Key to a New Economic and Democratic Order
Ed Rampell
The Advocates
Louis Proyect
The Education Business
October 18, 2018
Erik Molvar
The Ten Big Lies of Traditional Western Politics
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail