Assisted Suicide Legal in Washington
On May 21, 2009, Linda Fleming, a woman with terminal pancreatic cancer, took a fatal overdose of medications prescribed by her physician to end her life. She thus became the first person to commit suicide under the “Death with Dignity” law that passed the state legislature November 4, 2008 and took effect during March.
The law in Washington State is modeled after one that has been on the books in Oregon since 1997. About 400 people have ended their lives through physician-assisted suicide in that state.
Under the assisted suicide law in Washington, a patient who is terminally ill and legally competent and who two physicians agree has only 6-months to live, can request lethal medication. The request needs to be made verbally on two occasions, 15 days apart, followed by a written request witnessed by two people. The medication is dispensed by a pharmacy. Patients take the medication themselves, rather than having a doctor administer it to them.
I’ve counseled people battling fatal illnesses. I’ve watched a friend struggle against cancer. I’ve told family members in ICUs and ERs that their loved ones have died. So I know how much pain can come at the end of life, when an illness takes hold.
I understand where the desire for a law like Washington’s comes from. It’s a tribute to human empathy that lawmakers resonated with the suffering of terminally ill patients enough to pass it. But I wouldn’t have voted for it myself.
Alleviating the suffering of 400 or so patients since 1997 in Oregon has carried a pretty high price tag. It has opened the door to thinking of the medical profession not entirely as one devoted to prolonging life, but as one that is also empowered to help end lives. And this can leave patients feeling as though they ought to consider suicide when they are given terminal diagnoses. They ought to be reasonable, not just with what they are willing to go through, but with what they put their families and friends through. They ought not expend health care resources needlessly in their final months. Their clinicians aren’t only thinking about what treatment options to provide, after all. They’re thinking about other patients who have elected to forego treatment and hasten death.
I fear the law can also take away some of the motivation of doctors to “pull a rabbit out of a hat” and save a patient’s life. There’s a reason you wouldn’t want soldiers going into battle who are also trained in the etiquette of surrender. You’d worry it might unconsciously take away their edge, chip away a little bit at their determination to take that hill.
At present, the criteria which must be met under the Death with Dignity Law sound rational. But laws are not static entities. Now that the door to physician assisted suicide is open, the Death with Dignity law could be amended in the future, perhaps to include those who might not die for twelve months, or longer. How about those who suffer unbearably from medical conditions that will only worsen over the years? If we are willing to use the medical profession to help end the lives of those who have but six months to live, how about those who become quadriplegic and say they cannot bear it?
It is psychologically and spiritually perilous to do harm to the magnificent will to live that keeps us fighting for another day. And it is no less dangerous to blur the mandate of physicians to try to win that fight, however daunting, however seemingly futile. The physician’s white coat has meaning—to doctors and their patients. It must remain a bright beacon of the healing powers of the profession, not a flag of surrender to the inevitable.
Dr. Keith Ablow is a psychiatry correspondent for FOX News Channel and a New York Times bestselling author. His newest book, “Living the Truth: Transform Your Life through the Power of Insight and Honesty” has launched a new self-help movement. Check out Dr. Ablow’s Web site at livingthetruth.com.
Tags: "Death With Dignity", assisted suicide, doctors, Dr. Keith Ablow, fatal illness, law, Linda Fleming, medical profession, Oregon, terminally ill, Washington State
Share
This topic has tremendous personal relevance for me.
Although I’ve always been a proponent of death-with-dignity for those whose circumstances in life pretty much amout to “cruel and unusual punishment” (be they physical or psychological), I must admit that Dr. Ablow’s words are compelling and inspirational.
My own long-held and vehement endorsement of “assisted suicide” is tempered by the realization that such an option has many potential downfalls. What if the person who has 6 months to live (in pain) really wants to stick it out, but feels guilty because of the expense, and prolonged sadness of his/her loved ones? What if the person has been manipulated by certain “loved ones” to end his/her life pronto (for the “loved ones” benefit)? What if…?
Seems to me that in addition to having physicians, family members, and/or witnesses there for the final decision, it would be really helpful to have an experienced therapist there, as well, to help sort out any issues and confusion about this most important matter.
I can’t help but admire (and be moved by) Dr. Ablow’s unflappable optimism and belief in people’s “magnificent will to live”.
May you never lose that beautiful love for people and life, Dr. Ablow!
Good analysis of the law. Also, good description and amendment suggestion.
Ablow has written a powerful piece. It goes to the “guts” of the issue. Yes, assisted suicide speaks to human empathy; but indeed it is “perilous” to the human spirit to consider assisted suicide as sanctioned option; and to have physicians — the healers — blur those lines. Entering dangerous territory in my opinion.
We alll know that feeding tubes are removed in every major hospital in the USA on the comatose, the brain dead, and others like them–ending their lives. Technically this is doctor assisted suicide but rarely does the issue come to light. The last time it did, the matter concerned a young woman–who by all appearances was brain dead. Her husband wanted the feeding tube removed. Her parents did not. The matter went to court. The tube was removed and the woman died.
My biggest concern is when the state becomes involved. A patient’s own decision in the matter is one thing. When the government becomes involved, it becomes a whole other issue.
True, this is Germany in the late 1930s. We are not performing euthanasia on Ballastexistenzen; nor are we legally murdering “the other.” Nonetheless, one must be vigilant to ensure that it never happens again, especially when the possibilty exists that the state may be given in the not too distant future the authority to decide who gets medical care–and who does not.
“We are not dealing with machines, horses and cows whose only function is to serve mankind. . . . No, we are dealing with human beings . . . . sick people, if you like unproductive people. But have they for that reason forfeited their right to life?” From a sermon by Cardinal August Count von Galen, Bishop of Munster, Germany, August 3, 1941
Feeding tubes are removed in every major hospital in the USA on the comatose, the brain dead, and others like them–ending their lives. Technically this is doctor assisted suicide but rarely does the issue come to light. The last time it did, the matter concerned a young woman–who by all appearances was brain dead. Her husband wanted the feeding tube removed. Her parents did not. The matter went to court. The tube was removed and the woman died.
My biggest concern is when the state becomes involved. A patient’s own decision in the matter is one thing. When the government becomes involved, it becomes a whole other issue.
True, this is Germany in the late 1930s. We are not performing euthanasia on Ballastexistenzen; nor are we legally murdering “the other.” Nonetheless, one must be vigilant to ensure that it never happens again, especially when the possibilty exists that the state may be given in the not too distant future the authority to decide who gets medical care–and who does not.
“We are not dealing with machines, horses and cows whose only function is to serve mankind. . . . No, we are dealing with human beings . . . . sick people, if you like unproductive people. But have they for that reason forfeited their right to life?” From a sermon by Cardinal August Count von Galen, Bishop of Munster, Germany, August 3, 1941
Feeding tubes are removed in every major hospital in the USA on the comatose, the brain dead, and others like them–ending their lives. Technically this is doctor assisted suicide but rarely does the issue come to light. The last time it did, the matter concerned a young woman–who by all appearances was brain dead. Her husband wanted the feeding tube removed. Her parents did not. The matter went to court. The tube was removed and the woman died.
My biggest concern is when the state becomes involved. A patient’s own decision in the matter is one thing. When the government becomes involved, it becomes a whole other issue.
True, this is not Germany in the late 1930s. We are not performing euthanasia on Ballastexistenzen; nor are we legally murdering “the other.” Nonetheless, one must be vigilant to ensure that it never happens again, especially when the possibility exists that the state may be given in the not too distant future the authority to decide who gets medical care–and who does not.
“We are not dealing with machines, horses and cows whose only function is to serve mankind. . . . No, we are dealing with human beings . . . . sick people, if you like unproductive people. But have they for that reason forfeited their right to life?” From a sermon by Cardinal August Count von Galen, Bishop of Munster, Germany, August 3, 1941
5/31 I have been a hospital based RN x 29 yrs this month. I can say with no hesitation that assited suicide is not only merciful but it is common sense !!! Its easy to sit in front of a computer and debate the pros & cons , just try watching these people in agony, their doctors more afraid of the DEA than any GOD or man. This very night I have a patient who tried to commit suicide because her doctor was too afraid to increase her medication to effective doses. I see pts sufferring , begging for “comfort measures” which are legal!! This country is about to nationalize health care {hugh mistake} that means conditions for the suffering will only become more bueracratic . There is no law of man or God that entitles people to live to old age , the medical field & govenments need to remmember FIRST DO NO HARM!
While a think you make an eloquent speaker for your profession, you must come in to the real world of medicine and politics. I have just moved to North Carolina from Virginia and USED to be a healthcare Consultant, active speaker traveling around this great country helping physicians, hospitals and ambulatory surgery centers with documentation and CORRECT coding (I’m sure you know what I mean) to ensure patient’s are billed correctly. Since I moved, the doctors here took me off all but one of the medicines that I was on for my chronic pain and then when I recently had my gallbladder removed, only told me to increase that same medication every 4 hours instead of 6. Needless to say I was in severe pain for three days. I felt like I was back in the day when my previous husband used to beat me! Now I can’t work, can’t think, can’t move. When I looked at all of the bills I noticed that the anesthesiology supplies are paid MORE than the operating room supplies and the nurse anesthesitist was paid MORE than the surgeon. When I asked my surgeon why he couldn’t prescribe a postsurgical pain medication he stated that in North Carolina when a patient has a Pain physician there is a contract between all physicians that only the pain doctor can prescribe a medication. However, when I asked the pain doctors this they denied it. By the way, they all had electronic medical records and yet I had to go between my primary doctor, the surgeon and the pain physician.