After reading recently that the Maryland General Assembly is considering a “right to die” bill, I decided to comment about a terribly emotional subject. I support the right to choose to die.
I understand that a person’s right to die poses a dilemma to theologians, ethicists, doctors and just ordinary people like you and me. Life is precious, even amid immense, unremitting suffering. The pending loss of a loved one to a terminal disease is wrenching. We human beings want to hold on to a parent or spouse or child or friend. We don’t want to hasten the last breath.
The question is: what does the person facing certain death in six months or less want in his or her final months or days?
This question is a complicated one. Is the dying person competent to make a rational choice while under the barrage of medical treatments and palliative drugs?
I read a lengthy article written by a blogger for Mother Jones, an online and bimonthly print magazine. Kevin Drum wrote about the death of his father-in-law, a retired physician suffering from multiple myeloma. A man accustomed to controlling his own life and having watched many of his patients suffer during their final months, the writer’s father-in-law took his own life by breathing pure helium. He left a note saying he had taken his own life, confirming he received no assistance in doing so.
Kevin Drum, a 57-year-old Californian, also now is battling multiple myeloma. He has undergone treatment. His chemotherapy is working only so well. At some point, treatments will be futile, and his bones will become increasingly brittle.
In accordance with California law, which, like the proposed Maryland legislation and existing law in Oregon, contains several safeguards and a defined process before a doctor will prescribe life-ending drugs, Drum has a choice to decide how he dies
That’s critical: he has a choice.
Safeguards include the requirement that a patient must be a competent adult with no mental affliction that would affect judgment; two doctors must verify that a patient has fewer than six months to live; doctors must meet privately with a patient to ensure there is no evidence of coercion; the patient must make two requests for aid-in-dying drugs, separated by 15 days, as well as written request and only the attending physician can prescribe the drugs, which must be self-administered.
Drum wrote, “I don’t want to die. But if I have to, this is how I want it to happen. I don’t want a ‘” suicide party,’” but neither do I want to suffer needlessly for months. Nor do I want to cause other people any more pain than I have do. I want to go out quietly, with my loved ones at my side.”
Not surprisingly, the “right to die” movement has strong opposition. As was the case when the legislation was introduced two weeks ago in Annapolis, disability rights groups, who fear that doctors may act too readily in approving drugs, are particularly adamant in their opposition. They are concerned that those with disabilities might feel prodded to end their lives. I suppose this opposition is rooted in concern that the lives of the disabled are valued less than those who are able.
Medical groups too oppose the right to die argument. Doctors are trained to use every means possible to keep a person alive. I learned long ago that attacking a medical problem is comparable to combat—hence, a physician must use every weapon to fight a mortal disease or ailment. I understand that ethic.
Foreswearing any intention or implication of playing God with someone else’s life, I strongly believe that the overarching concept is choice. I question interfering with a loved one’s desire to end a life filled with deadly pain and discomfort. I say this, knowing my ingrained unwillingness to let go of a family member. Yet, the decision is not mine. I simply have to live with constant grief, leavened by memories and time.
What would I do? Would I have the courage to take life-ending drugs?
I don’t know. But I would like the choice. I want to make the final decision. My family and friends would understand.
Columnist Howard Freedlander retired in 2011 as Deputy State Treasurer of the State of Maryland. Previously, he was the executive officer of the Maryland National Guard. He also served as community editor for Chesapeake Publishing, lastly at the Queen Anne’s Record-Observer. In retirement, Howard serves on the boards of several non-profits on the Eastern Shore, Annapolis and Philadelphia.
Write a Letter to the Editor on this Article
We encourage readers to offer their point of view on this article by submitting the following form. Editing is sometimes necessary and is done at the discretion of the editorial staff.