Do We Really Want Doctors Who Are Comfortable with Killing?
Exploitation of the natural fear of suffering and death has led to a growing acceptance of euthanasia and assisted suicide. However, eliminating suffering is not the foremost aim of those who promote medical killing.
The proponents of assisted suicide laws are good at pulling on heart strings. They paint the picture of the terminal patient who is suffering and in pain to draw sympathy. But as we’ve seen in Canada, it quickly progresses from “assisted” suicide to mercy killing, all the way to doctors killing people facing depression, financial struggles, or going through a mental health crisis.
The Argument for a “Right to Die” has evolved into a “Right to Kill”
Here are a few examples illustrating how acceptance of the “right to die” has led to acceptance of the “right to kill” without patient consent.
• In 1999, Texas enacted a law that allows doctors to stop life-sustaining treatment against patients’ wishes on the basis that doctors know best (see “Futile Care,” p. 5).
• An episode of Dr. Phil’s popular TV show featured a Canadian woman who wanted her disabled adult children to die by lethal injection. When the studio audience was polled, 90% were in favor of killing them. [S10E135 Deadly Consequences Aired: Apr 13, 2012]
• In states that have legalized physician assisted suicide and removed state residency requirements, physicians can now prescribe lethal drugs to anyone who comes to them, including people from other states. There are no requirements to monitor where those lethal drugs are taken or to verify that they were ingested by the original patient.
Under Attack! Conscience Rights
Without medical participation, the euthanasia movement falls apart. Ominously, euthanasia activists and prominent academics want to exclude medical practitioners who refuse to kill their patients from practicing medicine. For instance, Udo Schuklenk, co-editor of Bioethics, a leading journal in the field of ethics, asserts that “Conscientious objection has no place in the practice of medicine.”1
Do we really want only health care providers who are comfortable with ending our lives?
Case in Point
“Eleanor” (not her real name) became ill with cancer in her 50s. Spirited and feisty with a wicked sense of humor, Eleanor regaled us doctors and nurses with tales about her event-filled life. But as cancer treatments failed to cure her, Eleanor’s mood darkened and she talked of plans to commit suicide before she became mentally diminished or physically dependent. We worked with Eleanor through treatment and especially by addressing her fears and the ramifications of a suicide decision. We were elated when she changed not only her mind but her attitude, embracing life with gusto. Eventually, she died comfortably and naturally.
When Eleanor initially changed her mind about committing suicide, her friends tracked me down on the oncology unit where I worked to complain that we were “interfering with her right to die.” Instead of being happy or relieved, they were outraged that we took the usual measures we’d take with anyone to prevent suicide.
Over the years, I’ve seen this disturbing enthusiasm for “choosing” death go mainstream. Consider the consequences for patients when expressing a wish to die is not viewed as a cry for help but rather as a request to be killed; when encouraging a suicidal person to change her mind is deemed “interfering with her right to die.”
By Nancy Valko, RN