I did see the “green flash” when the sun came up this morning, and it was a gorgeous sunrise.
But the news that the State Senate killed a so-called “death with dignity” bill (SB 803) was disappointing. The bill would have allowed a mentally competent, terminally ill patient to request medication that would bring a quiet death.
Having so recently gone through my dad’s long, tortuous process of dying, I’m convinced that it would have been far more loving to have intervened to end his suffering. And I’m equally convinced that each of us has the right to control our own end-of-life decisions.
Testimony against the bill was worse than disappointing. It left me profoundly depressed. It is a difficult issue, no doubt, because we have so much trouble in our culture dealing with death and dying. I would have been encouraged by an honest and frank exchange of view that might lead to additional clarity on how to proceed. But, reading through the testimony, it’s clear matters are made far worse by the obvious fear-mongering by leaders of certain Christian sects that make it impossible for their members to rationally address the issues.
And this bill only would have made the medical choice available to a qualified patient capable of making an informed decision. It would not have done anything for my father who, suffering from dementia as well as medical issues, along with plain old age, was not capable of making such an informed decision. He deserved to have a short-cut available instead of having to live through the torments of his last couple of weeks.
I hope that we will, one day, be able to deal with this issue. Those who oppose this form of assisted suicide are free to follow their own lead, and I wish them the best in their final days. But they should not be given the last word or be allowed to impose it on others.
Dying, obviously, is never easy. But I’m struck by how popular culture, like movies, can elevate suicidal decisions into examples of ultimate choice and personal bravery.
Then there’s Jesus himself, giving his life for others. Yet throughout the testimony on SB803, opponents of the bill return again and again to attacks on the idea that a terminally ill person might think about family and friends in making their own life decision, giving of themselves for the benefit of others. Why should those who call themselves Christians make such altruistic considerations sound evil? It seems to me to be quite a contradiction.
I can’t help thinking that the growing ranks of baby boomers are eventually going to sway this policy debate. We are all going to die. Do we have a right to have some control over when and how? I think we will eventually recognize this right. I wish it will be sooner rather than later.
Discover more from i L i n d
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I got the idea that the whole hearing was for show. If we wait for consensus on this issue, as Josh Green apparently wants to do, it will never come. I don’t know why my right to choose a reasonable path to death for myself or for loved ones who have vested me with this somber responsibility should be denied because of the looney fringe. How sad to see otherwise bright politicians cave.
Interesting that both you and David Shapiro pretty much come to the same conclusion.
However, since I wrote a fairly detailed comment on his blog, I won’t repeat it here other than to say that I agree with you, Ian.
In the meantime, how are we going to control escalating health costs – especially for end-of-life care and for keeping old people alive long past their ability to take care of themselves at the same time that government-funded programs are going to be slashed in order to cut state and federal deficits and give the rich more money?
Maybe by the time our grandchildren are themselves grandparents, some sense & sensibility will be part of our political decision-making.
i fully support this idea and believe it should be considered a basic human right. of course, you can always take your own life with your own hands but there should be protocols and assistance in place to make sure it is done properly, painlessly and with dignity. the controversy over a subject like this is just massive and not unlike the fervor associated with the issue of abortion.
I most often times disagree with Ian….but not on this issue. He is right on the mark. I know of so many people who come come from a modest or middle income family that save their entire life to watch all they have worked for be sucked up by the medical bills for the last 6 months of living. No money can be left to family which is what most saved for. It’s a shame.
If someone did want to go ahead and do it, where on the internet could they find information on how?
It is a very delicate search. And much more important a decision than looking on the internet.
A final medical directive can help decisions along with phrases like “I would like pain relief medication that will alleviate pain even if it hastens my death” or some such legal wording.
The book “Final Exit” is a worthy read on the topic. Though it actually does not offer much help, it lays out the landscape. What I got from reading “Final Exit” was that the legal and medical ethics are so fragmented that the topic should be discussed very carefully and among close agreeable family and legal representation.
The really sad thing about this is that it withholds from good, decent people the blessing to do what is already being done, and has been done, perhaps for centuries, by those who care for their terminally loved ones at home, with the assistance of physicians and others.
It’s a fine line between palliative care and hastening inevitable death, a line the crossing of which is not closely monitored in the home care context. It is, however, intrusively managed in institutions of the medico-industrial complex which, largely for profit reasons (IMNSHO), have every financial incentive to prolong life beyond its bitter end. Clearly, given the failure of this legislation — and of our legislators — we will continue to do the heavy lifting on our own, without the blessing of law, and with the threat of some sanctimonious SOB sticking his/her nose into our most intimate affairs.
Sad, Very sad. How very unevolved are we barely-out-of-the-trees-primates.
The really sad thing about this is that it withholds from good, decent people the blessing to do what is already being done, and has been done, perhaps for centuries, by those who care for their terminally loved ones at home, with the assistance of physicians and others.
It’s a fine line between palliative care and hastening inevitable death, a line the crossing of which is not closely monitored in the home care context. It is, however, intrusively managed in institutions of the medico-industrial complex which, largely for profit reasons (IMNSHO), have every financial incentive to prolong life beyond its bitter end. Clearly, given the failure of this legislation — and of our legislators — we will continue to do the heavy lifting on our own, without the blessing of law, and with the threat of some sanctimonious SOB sticking his/her nose into our most intimate affairs.
Sad, very sad. How very unevolved are we barely-out-of-the-trees-primates.
Hawaii keeps proving, over and over, what a backward hellhole it has become. The alternative is to die in a state that has more human laws. Oregon is one of them, but there are others.
I too am disappointed at the Hawaii Senate’s action, because every state that moves forward on this issue increases the odds California will too, and in time for me to make use of such a law if I need to. There is no peace of mind in knowing that you are at the mercy of the right-to-lifers and the medical-industrial complex as your own life comes to an end. They don’t own me! I own me!
For an additional take on all this, please check out my new novel WHAT YOU WISH FOR on Amazon.
The community gets what the community wants. Vote (or in Hawai’i’s case, don’t vote) for spineless, you get spineless.
Now that the civil unions struggle is drawing to a close, it might be possible for some of those who had mobilized for a sane, humane policy in that effort to now turn their attention to the Death with Dignity issue.
Carol’s remark contains some truth, but “spineless” is sometimes another way of saying legislators will not break from the status quo unless there is a strong, persistent effort to demonstrate the actual will of the public.
I suspect a majority of Hawaii’s people would support a reasonable law modeled on Oregon’s. But the movement to enact such legislation has to learn how to talk convincingly about the issue, in non-threatening language, going from community group to community group, allaying people’s concerns, building support.