Supreme Court decision could renew efforts for similar law in
California
A Supreme Court ruling Tuesday upholding Oregon’s Death With Dignity Act has cracked the door for California lawmakers hoping to pass a similar bill, giving physicians of terminally ill patients the right to prescribe a final lethal dose.
The controversial issue of physician-assisted suicide has left local clergy and community members divided over what is humane and moral.
“I agree with the Supreme Court ruling,” said Father William Clancey of St. Stephen’s Episcopal Church. “I don’t see anything positive coming out of somebody who’s facing an agonizing death where there’s no way (they can medically be helped).”
Clancey is hoping area clergy will discuss the topic at their next meeting in February.
“I think what has happened in a way, and one of the ironies of medical science, is we’ve prolonged life to the point where we are subjected to things that we weren’t subjected to before,” he explained. “Doctors have been doing this quietly for years, let’s give them the protection of the law. Then you shed the burden of responsibility to the patient, and they want it.”
The high court’s ruling did not determine whether assisted suicide is morally right or wrong.
Rather, the 6-3 vote stated that the federal government could not override a state’s right to regulate medical practice.
Father Gene O’Donnell of St. Catherine Church in Morgan Hill did not support the decision, reasoning that by making it legal, one suffering from a terminal illness might believe the decision is the right thing to do.
“When there is the right to die out there, if somebody is terminally ill, and feeling that they are burden on their family, they might feel pressured (to choose death),” he explained. “Making it legal seems to put a veneer that this is right … While we think that people have a right to die with dignity, we want to determine a difference between taking a life and dying in a natural way. We believe that we are really called upon to support the person in their final days. It’s a very humanizing experience.”
An Assembly bill modeled after Oregon’s law was pulled from the floor after it appeared it would fail last year. The California Compassionate Choices Act will likely come back into play in March with new vigor.
The practice has been legal in Oregon since 1997. According to recent statistics, only 208 patients have chosen to medically end their lives.
According to Darcy Niemeyer, Executive Assistant of the Oregon Department of Human Services, the median age for those patients is 69, and most suffered from various forms of cancer. Others were infected with HIV/AIDS or diagnosed with Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis – more commonly known as Lou Gehrig’s Disease.
In Oregon, physicians prescribe a lethal dose of barbiturates. Two physicians must diagnose the patient’s condition as terminal, and the patient must undergo psychiatric analysis beforehand to determine that the decision is being made with a sound mind and is not coerced. No one but the patient may ask for the prescription – and they must ask twice and put the request in writing. California’s bill is nearly identical in format.
No doctor or hospital is required to write the prescription.
“It’s a controversial law and not all physicians agree with it,” Niemeyer said.
The American Medical Association has taken a stance against the law. No South County physicians contacted would comment on the bill.
Bonnie Evans, a Gilroy hospice volunteer, has assisted many individuals in the final stages of their lives since she started volunteering in 1995. She has only encountered one patient who she believes would have pursued the option if it were legal.
Many supporters of physician-assisted suicide argue that the pain is sometimes too much for patients to bare.
But Evans believes that pain is not usually the issue.
“Pain management is hospice’s number one concern,” she said. “Getting people comfortable is always possible. The one patient … she did not see any point to her life. She did not have any family here. Her mind was like, ‘What’s the point?'”
She believes a patient will fight through pain if they feel they have a purpose in life.
“The dying have so much to give,” she said. “I hate to see a life ended before it does what it came to do. We all have a purpose.”
Evans has seen families sacrifice a lot to keep their loved ones comfortable in their final days – converting living rooms into hospital rooms to keep them at home. They begin the grieving process while their loved one is alive, Evans said.
“Families know how much that person was suffering,” she said. “I just see so much more grief that has to be understood … so much guilt, ‘Why didn’t they want to live?'”
One person struggling with the issue on a more personal level is Assemblymember Simón Salinas (D-Salinas). His father, who has cancer, is under hospice care at his home.
“I go back and forth, certainly when you see him in pain,” he said.
Salinas tries to put himself in the position of a terminally ill patient.
“Would you want that choice?” he asked.
He knows that the road ahead will be difficult once the bill is revived. Supporters from both sides will lobby their causes – Salinas is just hoping the debate will be civilized.
“My hope is that it’s civil discourse, that people realize that this is a difficult issue,” he said. “It’s not black and white.”
