July 24, 2010

published in Commentary >> The Soapbox

The right to die

by: Allen Hines

I have never been able to walk independently, and for much of my life, I lived in a two-story house, separated by sixteen steps. (I counted each time I climbed the stairs to use the bathroom or go to bed.) My family's house was not accessible, but I made do and got around by crawling on my knees. 

When I was younger – when my joints did not tell the weather, when all that mattered was throwing a baseball like Charles Nagy and fielding like Omar Vizquel – I ignored my father's advice not to jump around as much when I played.

Now, I regret my carelessness. I have little cartilage left in my knees, and the sound of extending my legs is the quiet grind of bone against bone. I have the joints of someone at least twice my age. Indeed, I am the youngest person I know who complains about arthritis. And the pain is likely to grow worse as I grow older.

Right now, my joint pain is manageable, but it does affect my quality of life. I foresee a point in the (I hope, distant) future at which the pain could overwhelm my desire to live.

As it is, my joint pain pales in comparison with the pain of other disabled people or ill people. Some impairments can cause intense pain over long periods of time. Beyond physical pain, impairments can limit people to their homes or nursing homes and cause the emotional pain of isolation. In such circumstances, some people would find solace in their right to die.

While most people can end their lives without help, some cannot. People with severe physical impairments simply do not have the ability. A person's ability should not determine whether he or she can end a painful life.

Simply, if someone wants to die, he or she should be able to have another person help in ending his or her life.

Doctors are perhaps most qualified to assist someone in euthanasia, having gone through med school and received instruction on various medications. But because some doctors view themselves as healers and interpret the Hippocratic oath in different ways, they may be hesitant to perform euthanasia.

Like euthanasia itself, the doctors' decisions about what it means to “do no harm” are personal. Forcing doctors to go against their conceptions of self in order to allow people to end their lives would be unfair.

Still, other doctors view euthanasia as a legitimate medical procedure intended to reduce suffering. Were active euthanasia legal, these doctors would give ill and disabled people an option when they find their lives not worth living. Further, some of these doctors could specialize in providing euthanasia, finding ways to make passing away more comfortable.

Active euthanasia is a murky issue that has been associated with the forced eradication of people who possess “undesirable” traits. The prevailing argument against active euthanasia contends that helping people die has strong parallels with eugenicist practices, which culminated in the Holocaust.

In fascist Germany, according to the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, at least 200,000 disabled people were killed by the government. Some people in German infirmaries were killed with injections of kerosene.

If society allows doctors to help people die, the argument goes, the rights of ill and disabled people could begin a dangerous slide down a slippery slope. At the bottom of the slope lies a dystopian society that has returned to its eugenicist past, justifying forced euthanasia as a way to reduce suffering.

In 1993, the Canadian Supreme Court,  using a similar argument, ruled that active euthanasia should remain illegal. Sue Rodriguez claimed before the Court her constitutional right to assistance in committing suicide.

With her worsening amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, Rodriguez foresaw her inability to end her life when she wanted to die. In a five-four split, the Court rejected her claim because legalizing assisted suicide could create the potential for abuse and lead to the killing of vulnerable people.

This view, however, dismisses the growth of the disability rights movement between the 1950s and 1990s. It is an offshoot of the idea that ill and disabled people cannot advocate for themselves.

Prior to deinstitutionalization, most ill and disabled people were kept from participating in society, locked away in hospitals or prison-like institutions. Once we were allowed the opportunity, the disability rights movement began pressing for equality.

Because of our movement, ill and disabled people today enjoy more protections than earlier generations. We are protected from discrimination under federal law.

But, perhaps more importantly, we have formed a political entity and we demand respect. Past generations did not have the foothold we have earned, so they were in no position to respond to the Holocaust.

The mass murder of a politically empowered group in a stable democracy like the United States seems unlikely, but politicians still have no place in discussions about someone's right to die. The role of the government in active euthanasia should be minimal. Federal or state legislatures should legalize the practice, require documentation of patients' wishes, then step back, leaving it as a personal decision.  Documentation would ensure an ill or disabled person truly had wanted to die and protect the doctor from lawsuits or criminal prosecution at the same time.

In substance, the choice to die impacts only the person wishing to die and the person who assists that person. No one is harmed by the choice. The choice has no implications on broader society.

It is personal, and one person's choice is not applicable to all similar cases. It will not lead to another Holocaust. And safeguards can protect against abuse. The right for severely impaired people to choose to die is a way of empowering them to make decisions about how and if they want to live.

...and now for your two cents

Please login to leave a comment

Username: Password:  or register

---