(Editor’s note – this should have been posted over a week ago. The timelag between the writing of this post and the publishing on the blog is entirely my responsibility. –SD)
I grew up in Kalamazoo, Michigan, so when the Kalamazoo Gazette’s October 1st edition featured three opinion pieces supporting assisted suicide, I had to respond. The authors were three senior high school students who are members of the paper’s 24-member Young Editorial Staff (YES). The paper noted that the students pick their own discussion topics and the views expressed are solely those of the students. There were no counterpoint editorials opposing assisted suicide.
The three editorials can be viewed in their entirety in the paper’s online archive. They serve to remind us how little accurate information about the issue is out there in the mainstream media.
The first opinion writer pointed out that Jack Kevorkian was arrested many times and found not guilty “until 1997, when the Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional for people who could not take their own life to be helped along the way. However, those who are physically able to end their own lives have the constitutional right to do so.”
Maybe it’s just the JD in me that needs to provide corrections: The Supreme Court actually ruled in 1997 that state laws against assisted suicide arenot unconstitutional, but did not declare assisted suicide unconstitutional and left the door open for states to legalize it. In addition, the physical ability of a person to end their own life has not been considered legally relevant, nor has an alleged inability to end one’s own life ever been one of the statutory criteria to be eligible for assisted suicide. Moreover, historically, suicide (as distinguished from assisted suicide) was not a constitutional right and states could outlaw it, even though suicide has not been illegal in any state for many years.
The second opinion writer, who favors voluntary euthanasia as well as assisted suicide, stated, “In the majority of assisted suicide cases, the patients have a condition that causes them great pain, a slow death, and eventual loss of mental ability.” In contrast, according to the Oregon Reports, only 15 % of the people were reported to have actual pain or concern about future pain as a reason for requesting a lethal prescription, and this reason was attributed to only 21% over all 13 years of reports. It’s hard to know how she came up with the “eventual loss of mental ability” factor either.
The third opinion writer stated that, “Terminal is defined as a medically incurable illness,” which isn’t exactly the definition under the Oregon and Washington statutes requiring two doctors to predict that the individual will die within six months. But maybe she looked at the New Hampshire proposal. In any case, she concluded that eligibility for assisted suicide should not be limited to the terminally ill:
I say we trust this matter to the only judge available: ourselves. But I’m not suggesting we open clinics with “walk-ins welcome” signs. I agree completely with the idea of a lengthy application, testing, and approval process to make certain the decision is made soberly and willingly, and for stronger reasons than a comparatively fleeting low point.
She didn’t say who would review the applications, administer the tests, or issue the approvals, but whether it be a doctor or some other authority figure who determines eligibility, it’s hard to say that “the only judge” is the individual.
With the typical word limit on letters to the editor, I didn’t try to make these points in my response. Instead, I highlighted the point that Margaret Dore has made so effectively, the fact that assisted suicidelaws contain no safeguards after the lethal prescription is issued, creating several dangers, including that the lethal dose could be administered by anyone with or without the individual’s consent.
I was glad to see that my letter was published in my hometown paper on October 11. But the four online comments submitted by other readers all favored assisted suicide, and showed zero comprehension of the illusory nature of the “safeguards” in assisted suicide laws. – Diane Coleman
The young person who listed “loss of mental ability” is a reflection of societal fears.
Diane Coleman’s article is very helpful, particularly in explaining the U.S. Supreme Court decisions.
Critical thinking is not taught so much in schools, and certainly is lacking in media coverage.
My observations indicate to me that the greatest learning occurs to persons in the general population who are not disabled, when they become ill and/or disabled with aging. I’ve seen it time and time again in family members, who acknowledge, “oh, now I understand what you have been saying”.
Every article and letter published, that is protesting “assisted suicide” from our points of view as people with disabilities, makes a dent in the media spread of misinformation.
This brainwashing of our young people is frightening. They cannot believe that they themselves may, sooner rather than later, find themselves in the same situation by reason of an accident or sudden illness. They cannot comprehend what so often happens. The person who thought life with disability would be unbearable finds that life is still full of joy and happiness and that people with disabilities of one kind or another often make enormously valuable contributions to the lives of others, sometimes just by being a small but steady light.
If this articles written by our people is a reflection of the true sentiment of their generation, then that is truly alarming. Assisted suicide, be it constitutional or unconstitutional, is wrong because no one has the right to take or even assist in ending ones life.