Physician-Assisted Suicide

Most people facing a devastating illness are usually seeking true compassion, loving care, family support and quality pain control. Instead of enacting a law that opens up a Pandora’s box of possible abuses, we as a society should work on refining the existing system of medical care to reflect the 1993 statement of the American Medical Association when they took a position against physician-assisted suicide. The AMA reaffirmed this position in 2019.

“Physician-assisted suicide is fundamentally incompatible with the physician’s role as healer, would be difficult or impossible to control, and would pose serious societal risks. Instead of participating in assisted suicide, physicians must aggressively respond to the needs of patients at the end of life. Patients should not be abandoned once it is determined that cure is impossible. Multidisciplinary interventions should be sought including specialty consultation, hospice care, pastoral support, family counseling, and other modalities. Patients near the end of life must continue to receive emotional support, comfort care, adequate pain control, respect for patient autonomy, and good communication.” Opinion 2.211 – Physician-Assisted Suicide, American Medical Society, adopted 1993, updated June 1996. Reaffirmed November 2023.

Many proponents of physician-assisted suicide believe that this procedure is a private personal matter and the state should allow individuals to end their lives if they so desire. The only problem with this thought process is that once a legislature enacts a physician-assisted suicide law, it impacts everyone. It now places the option of suicide on the “table of options” to be considered when a person is facing a serious illness. It presents opportunities for the ill, the elderly and the disabled to be manipulated by those around them who would benefit from their death. It may even effect the options for medical care that people will be provided. In Oregon, the state’s Public Health Plan informed patients that the insurance will cover the costs of medication for physician-assisted suicide, but not the cancer treatment they requested. The right of an individual is far overshadowed by the potential negative impact on our society. The right to die may soon become the responsibility to die for the sick, the elderly and the disabled. The passage of physician-assisted suicide would create a terrible public policy.

The supporters would have you believe that there have been no complaints, but clearly the Washington and Oregon laws are a recipe for elder abuse.  The most obvious reason is due to a lack of oversight when the lethal dose is administered. For example, the law does not require a witness at the time of death; the death occurs in private. With this situation, the opportunity is created for an heir, or for another person who will benefit from the patient’s death, to administer the lethal dose to the patient without their consent. Even if the patient struggled, who would know? We note that the state health departments in Oregon and Washington do not ask about abuse, monitor for abuse or issue any reports on abuse.

No. Supporters of physician-assisted suicide argue that religious groups are its strongest opponents. This also is not true. Although religious groups, such as the Catholic Church and other denominations strongly oppose this type of legislation and have been known to actively fund efforts to defeat it, many other groups have spoken out loudly against physician-assisted suicide in state after state. Organizations representing the medical, hospice, disability and elderly communities are all strong opponents of this type of legislation. Physician-assisted suicide legislation is also strongly opposed by the American Medical Association. Any effort to call this a religious issue is clearly an attempt to detract from the serious problems relating to the legalization of physician-assisted suicide.

Although advocates for physician-assisted suicide would like one to believe that uncontrollable pain is the primary reason that individuals seek to end their lives; this is simply not supported by the facts.  In the words of the Oregon Public Health Division concerning physician-assisted suicides in 2022, “ as in previous years, the three most frequently reported end-of-life concerns were: decreasing ability to participate in activities that made life enjoyable (89%), loss of autonomy (86%),  and loss of dignity (62%).”  Fear of being a burden on family and friends was a concern in 46% of the cases, while fear of pain was a concern in only 31%. (“State of Oregon Death with Dignity Report 2022”, Oregon Public Health Division).  

No. “aid in dying” or “death with dignity” are more socially tolerable terms for physician-assisted suicide. These terms are used by advocates of physician-assisted suicide in order to  avoid the use of the word “suicide”, which most people find objectionable. Webster’s dictionary defines suicide as the “act or an instance of taking one’s own life voluntarily and intentionally especially by a person of years of discretion and of sound mind”.  Therefore, these terms mean nothing more than having a physician provide lethal medication to a patient who wishes to commit suicide.

Physician-assisted suicide occurs when a doctor writes a prescription for a patient who has a terminal illness and is told they have only six months to live. The patient then must have the prescription filled at a local pharmacy and self-administer the drug, which in most cases occurs at home.  The physician is almost never present at the patient’s suicide.  The physician or another health care professional cannot administer the drug. The patient must consume the medication, which may number around 100 pills, to themselves. The physician’s role basically ends once they provide the prescription to the patient. Physician-assisted suicide is not related to the withdrawal of feeding tubes, intravenous fluids, breathing tubes, etc. The withdrawal of these devices is already allowed under law and under Catholic medical directives.