Is choosing death with dignity a moral decision?

Posted by:

After being terminally ill for months or perhaps years, should you have the right to say, “I’ve had enough. It’s time to die?” Not only a tough question, it’s one that makes us uneasy.

Seven states—California, Colorado, Hawaii, Montana, Oregon, Vermont, Washington—and the District of Columbia permit what some call “death with dignity.” Except for Montana, the laws are similar: patients must be a resident of the state, capable of making and communicating health care decisions for themselves, at least 18 years old, and diagnosed with a terminal illness that will lead to death within six months. Patients must also make two oral requests, at least 15 days apart, and one written request.

Polar views are voiced by Peter Singer, philosopher and professor of bioethics at Princeton University, and Dr. Ilora Finlay, former president of the British Medical Association.

Singer believes, “There are circumstances in which the person who is considering death wants to die. That is their autonomous choice. So, death is not a violation of their autonomy, or contrary to their strongest wishes … there are cases in which a person has no more valuable life to look forward to—valuable by their judgment, not valuable by somebody’s else’s judgment.”

Finlay sees too much risk. “When you normalize physician-assisted suicide., the underlying social dynamic changes. Laws send a message. And the message they send is that if you’re terminally ill, ending your life is something that you probably ought to think about.”

Why is it we have concluded that months, and sometimes years, of chronic pain are not grounds to end one’s life?  The common response: only God has that right, yet we make exceptions to that rule. No one questions the right to take a life to defend his own or another’s. Capital punishment exists in 31 states. Even among those who oppose abortion, many believe abortion is morally acceptable when a mother’s life is at risk.

But taking one’s life to escape a prolonged and painful illness is another matter.

Sen. Charleta B. Tavares, D-Columbus, shares Singer’s perspective. In April, she introduced S.B. 249, which is modeled after Oregon’s law. Tavares acted in response to concerns expressed by constituents who are members of Death with Dignity, a non-profit that believes qualified terminally ill people should have the right to make their own end-of-life decisions.

Tavares sees a big distinction between suicide and S.B. 249, and she doesn’t like the bill being coined as “physician-assisted suicide.” She explains that when people commit suicide, “they are generally suffering from a disorder, are not terminally ill, and they make the decision to end their life spontaneously. They die alone and in the state of despair.”

Tavares lost a brother to suicide and is a strong advocate for suicide prevention programs. She doesn’t see any inconsistency with S.B. 249. People who will benefit from S.B. 249 “already know they are about to die,” says Tavares.

“They simply want the chance to stop their suffering and their family’s suffering. They want to control how they will depart. They are making a rational decision.”

A study by the Journal of the American Medical Association evidences that Oregon’s law is used somewhat minimally. During an 18-year period, 1545 prescriptions for lethal medications were written, and 991 patients died by using those prescriptions, meaning patients changed their minds. The median age for patients was 71. The large majority suffered from cancer.

Tavares and those who believe in death with dignity aren’t asking others to change their moral beliefs. They just want to provide an end-of-life option to those who want it. Shouldn’t they be able to say, “I’ve suffered long and hard. I’ve had enough. So has my family. I’d like the peace that death brings.”

Confronting death is scary. Perhaps morality gives us a veil to hide behind.

[This post was published in the Columbus Dispatch on August 8, 2018.]

_________________________________________

Jack D’Aurora writes for Considerthisbyjd.com

_______________________________________________________



Also published on Medium.

7
  Related Posts
  • No related posts found.

Comments

  1. Robert W Test  August 27, 2018

    Saw this piece in the paper last week. Always impressed by your careful writing and your thoughtful examination of issues. You raise the bar for others thinking of writing for the paper.

    I know newspapers are not the appropriate place for a deeper look at the nature of morality — for discussion of the Euthyphro problem — can religion or the concept of God provide a foundation for morality or is religious morality simply a matter of a powerful God arbitrarily exerting his power to command obedience.

    Is euthanasia morally wrong because God opposes it or does God oppose it because it is morally wrong?

    reply
    • jdaurora@behallaw.com  August 28, 2018

      Your last question has my head spinning. Thank you for the compliment.

      reply
  2. Matt  August 27, 2018

    Jack – thank you for raising this important issue for your readers.

    Life is such an incredible gift and suffering is very much part of the gift. In accepting suffering that cannot be avoided (e.g. a terminal illness), and in suffering well till the very end, we give to our own life (and by implication, others’ lives) the profound respect that our life deserves. We speak a powerful YES to LIFE itself.

    When we choose to end our life early, even if only by a few days or weeks, our final statement is a NO to life – that there are parts of this life not worth experiencing or enduring. By choosing to be the final arbiter of when our life ends, we reduce its mystery, its greatness and we communicate that diminished view of life to our loved ones as our final statement and interpretation of the gift we were given.

    reply
    • jdaurora@behallaw.com  August 28, 2018

      You’ve presented a very eloquent and moving argument, and you’ve got me thinking. I may be leaning in the direction of death with dignity but am not completely certain about the idea. The point that gives me pause to favor it is that I sense the pain for some may be so great, both physically and emotionally, that a patient is justified in saying, “Enough.” Regardless, the idea of death with dignity deserves discussion. Great having you as a reader, Matt. I appreciate you taking the time to comment.

      reply
    • Robert W Test  August 31, 2018

      Jack’s piece referred to two arguments regarding medical assisted suicide in terminal illness cases (MAS). I wish those arguments had been addressed in the replies. They are certainly worthy of discussion.

      Matt presents a third argument — at least his thoughts can be structured as an argument.

      Premise 1: Life is an incredible gift.
      Premise 2: Life is a mystery.
      Premise 3: Life is great.
      Premise 4: MAS (medically assisted suicide) reduces the mystery of life.
      Premise 5. MAS diminishes the value of life.
      Premise 6: Life deserves profound respect.

      Therefore: MAS is wrong.

      Matt didn’t construct this argument. I have constructed it to make his reasoning easier (at least for me) to follow.

      Obviously the argument is invalid. Even if the premises are true the conclusion does not follow from the premises.
      The problem is that the major premise (if you put it in standard syllogistic form) is missing.

      Here is the obvious candidate for the major premise.

      Suggested Major Premise: Incredible, mysterious, and great gifts ought not be given up.

      I’ve been given a few incredible gifts over my lifetime. A few mysterious gifts as well. I’ve been given great gifts. I no longer possess most of these gifts. I don’t believe that losing, throwing out, giving away or destroying any of these gifts has in way way reduced the respect I have for great mysterious and incredible gifts. When I give up a mysterious gift it doesn’t diminish its mystery or its value.

      And I don’t believe that after one is done with enjoying an incredible, mysterious or great gift that it is wrong to give it up in a way that is generally deemed proper. I wouldn’t want to insult the giver, for example. But sometimes we no longer want to keep what was given to us. It no longer suits our purposes.

      So, I believe the major premise is false and therefore the argument (that I have -accurately?- built out of his comments) is invalid.

      To point out the obvious: maybe I am wrong about the major premise. Clearly the major premise could actually be true and that good reasons can be provided that would cause me to see that the major premise is actually true.

      I also believe that the major premise in one of the arguments that Jack referred to is insufficient to support the conclusion that was offered. That is another matter.

      reply
  3. Michael Becker  August 28, 2018

    Interesting article and one all of us should spend time thinking about. The problem is that the extreme cases are easy. It is the more borderline cases that cause much angst in anyone willing to ponder this. Unfortunately, not everyone is well versed in the philosophy of pain and pleasure. Those who are not may very well be easily influenced by not only doctors (themselves very likely not qualified to weigh in on the moral/philosophical/metaphysical issues in any meaningful way) but by others who have motives unrelated to the individual. I do not know how to draw such lines but I suggest it is a very difficult matter and not to be trifled with by those not fully versed in the issues and not without the buy in of the individuals family.

    reply
    • jdaurora@behallaw.com  August 28, 2018

      You’ve articulated some valid concerns, Counselor. Nicely done!

      reply

Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published and your last name is optional.