Op-Ed/Opinion

NJ Op-Ed: Death With Dignity for the Terminally Ill Proposal Includes Crucial Safeguards

NJ.com– “If you were to become terminally ill and have fewer than six months to live, would you or would you not want the legal option to end your own life with the assistance of a physician?

Claudia Burzichelli, 54, becomes emotional as she addresses the Health and Senior Services Committee during a meeting considering the controversial bill “Death with Dignity Act” in a February 2013 photo. (Patti Sapone/The Star-Ledger)

The Fairleigh Dickinson University PublicMind poll put that question to more than 800 New Jersey adults in July. More than half the respondents said yes.

Yes, they said: The state should pass a bill allowing doctors to prescribe life-ending drugs. Yes, they want the ability to face death on their own terms, at their own time, in their own homes when the pain becomes intolerable and the nights unendurable.

Please. Yes.

Cruelly, the means are just beyond their grasp in New Jersey, where such a bill in the state legislature was pulled in June when its sponsor, Assemblyman John Burzichelli (D-Paulsboro), realized he couldn’t win the 41 votes it needed.

The Death with Dignity for the Terminally Ill Act (A2270) contains crucial safeguards designed to reassure opponents haunted by the specter of rash decisions and irresponsible medical responses.

Under the bill’s careful wording, patients wanting to end their lives would have to (1) verbally request a prescription for a lethal drug, then (2) wait at least 15 days to submit another verbal request and one in writing, signed by two witnesses; at which point (3) the doctor would have to offer the patient a chance to withdraw the request and (4) a second doctor would be required to certify the original doctor’s terminal-illness diagnosis and confirm the patient is acting voluntarily and is capable of making the decision.

One further protection is built in: Patients must be able to administer the drug themselves.”

Full Editorial Here

Op-Ed: Aid In Dying Is Not The Same Thing As Assisted Suicide

Las Cruces Sun-News “Thank you for your July 16, 2014 article on Mrs. Paynowski’s life and her impending death. I am humbled to read her story and commend her courageous end-of-life choices.

We are so fortunate to have the Mesilla Valley Hospice in our community, which does so much not only in caring for people at the end of their lives, but also in educating persons close to death and their families and friends on what to expect during the dying process.

Thank you also for including Mr. Sundheimer’s educational comments on the importance of advance directives. Compassion and Choices, a national nonprofit organization committed to helping everyone have the best death possible, promotes the completion of advance directives by all persons 18 years of age and older.

Thinking about one’s own death may not be easy, but most of us find comfort in educating ourselves about the broad range of choices we have at the end of our lives and, most importantly, in having some control over our final days — even when injury or illness takes our voices. We can write down the care and treatment we do want, and we can write down the care and treatment we don’t want in an advance directive. We can inform our family, our friends and our physicians, of what our wishes are. A person’s wishes may change over time. A new advance directive with a later date and witness signature can address any changes. And Mr. Sundheimer is right; carry a copy of your advance directive with you.

Compassion and Choices offers a “Good To Go” Resource guide on it’s website (www.compassionandchoices.org) that will help any person begin to think about end-of-life issues. Also on the website, you can find additional assistance such as a values worksheet to help you determine what your end-of-life treatment wishes are, the advance directive forms for every state, a sample letter to a physician to help you have that important discussion, and a great deal more…” Full Op-Ed Here

Op-Ed: The right to choose death in terminal situations

Here in the U.S. we speak often of the value of individual rights. Yet what should be acknowledged as one of the most basic of human rights is denied the majority of Americans: the right to choose the best death possible in terminal situations.

Our Unrealistic Views of Death, Through a Doctor’s Eyes

Our nation’s mass exodus away from the land and an agricultural existence and toward a more urban lifestyle means that we’ve antiseptically left death and the natural world behind us.

Excerpts, Washington Post – “I know where this phone call is going. I’m on the hospital wards, and a physician in the emergency room downstairs is talking to me about an elderly patient who needs to be admitted to the hospital. The patient is new to me, but the story is familiar: He has several chronic conditions — heart failure, weak kidneys, anemia, Parkinson’s and mild dementia — all tentatively held in check by a fistful of medications. He has been falling more frequently, and his appetite has fallen off, too. Now a stroke threatens to topple this house of cards.

The ER physician and I talk briefly about what can be done. The stroke has driven the patient’s blood pressure through the roof, aggravating his heart failure, which in turn is threatening his fragile kidneys. The stroke is bad enough that, given his disabilities related to his Parkinson’s, he will probably never walk again. In elderly patients with a web of medical conditions, the potential complications of any therapy are often large and the benefits small. It’s a medical checkmate; all moves end in abdication.

I head to the ER. If I’m lucky, the family will accept the news that, in a time when we can separate conjoined twins and reattach severed limbs, people still wear out and die of old age. If I’m lucky, the family will recognize that their loved one’s life is nearing its end. 

But I’m not always lucky. The family may ask me to use my physician superpowers to push the patient’s tired body further down the road, with little thought as to whether the additional suffering to get there will be worth it. For many Americans, modern medical advances have made death seem more like an option than an obligation. We want our loved ones to live as long as possible, but our culture has come to view death as a medical failure rather than life’s natural conclusion…

…For all its technological sophistication and hefty price tag, modern medicine may be doing more to complicate the end of life than to prolong or improve it. If a person living in 1900 managed to survive childhood and childbearing, she had a good chance of growing old. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, a person who made it to 65 in 1900 could expect to live an average of 12 more years; if she made it to 85, she could expect to go another four years. In 2007, a 65-year-old American could expect to live, on average, another 19 years; if he made it to 85, he could expect to go another six years.

For most of us living with sidewalks and street lamps, death has become a rarely witnessed, foreign event. The most up-close death my urban-raised children have experienced is the occasional walleye being reeled toward doom on a family fishing trip or a neighborhood squirrel sentenced to death-by-Firestone. The chicken most people eat comes in plastic wrap, not at the end of a swinging cleaver. The farmers I take care of aren’t in any more of a hurry to die than my city-dwelling patients, but when death comes, they are familiar with it. They’ve seen it, smelled it, had it under their fingernails. A dying cow is not the same as a person nearing death, but living off the land strengthens one’s understanding that all living things eventually die.

With unrealistic expectations of our ability to prolong life, with death as an unfamiliar and unnatural event, and without a realistic, tactile sense of how much a worn-out elderly patient is suffering, it’s easy for patients and families to keep insisting on more tests, more medications, more procedures.” Full Article on WaPo

Op-Ed: Aid In Dying Legal in Montana

“Aid in dying is not embraced by everyone, but why should those who do not believe in it want to block the availability to someone who does believe? Why would anyone want to interfere with such a private thing as a dying person’s last wishes?”

Excerpt, Great Falls Tribune – “I am a 78-year-old retired physician with Parkinson’s disease who has a different perspective on what has been termed assisted suicide. Aid in dying is a more appropriate term as suicide relates to a patient with mental illness. The American Public Health Association, the nation’s largest public health society, endorses the term aid in dying, recognizing the terms suicide or assisted suicide are inappropriate when discussing the choice made by a mentally competent terminally ill patient seeking an avenue through which he can experience a peaceful and dignified death.

During my years of practice, I cared for numerous patients during their final days. Many slipped away peacefully but there were those who suffered a slow, agonizing, degrading end. It was not uncommon for them to ask for death but death does not always come easily. It is for this group that aid in dying is intended. It is based on an understanding reached between a patient and his doctor only after all the facets of the case have been reviewed and hopefully early enough in the course of the illness that family and loved ones may be involved…” Full Letter

Ozzy And Sharon Osbourne On Life Worth Living

RTT – “In 2007, Ozzy and Sharon Osbourne revealed that they have a joint agreement to take the other to the Switzerland-based assisted dying organization called Dignitas should Alzheimer’s disorder afflict either.

Now, speaking with the Mirror, Ozzy says that the pact includes other disorders:

“If I can’t live my life the way I’m living it now — and I don’t mean financially — then that’s it,” he began.

“If I can’t get up and go to the bathroom myself and I’ve got tubes up my ass and an enema in my throat, then I’ve said to Sharon, ‘Just turn the machine off.’ If I had a stroke and was paralyzed, I don’t want to be here.”

(Op-Ed) A God of Mercy Would Allow Death With Dignity

“…We, as a country, cannot expect every citizen to live by the guidelines set out in the Bible, and we need to recognize that not all agree with the Bible, and some people are suffering extreme, prolonged pain and discomfort for long periods of time due to their diseases.

I honestly don’t think God, being a god of mercy, would judge a person for deciding to end their life a bit sooner and more comfortably than natural death would give them…”

Comox Valley Record Letter To The Editor

Letter: A Change To This Barbaric Law Could Have Allowed My Brother A Dignified Death

Steve Goodman shares this heart-wrenching personal story and calls on readers to help spread the word of an update to the law for assisted suicide.

On The Wight – “My mother is nearly 80; she could have spent the last 14 years in prison for assisting my brother’s suicide. 

Like my father and my aunt, in middle age my brother Nigel became ill with the incurable, degenerative Huntingtons Disease. He knew what to expect, and kept going for as long as possible before attempting suicide when the suffering became too great. He failed because by then, he had become too ill to succeed alone.

Begged for suicide assistance
Out of hospital for a day on his 42nd birthday, he begged my mother to help him; she did so because she loved him, and because that was the only way he would be able to die when he needed to. At the Old Bailey for sentencing she was lucky that the judge acknowledged the ghastly circumstances and shared her compassion, and discharged her.

It is a sad and shameful fact that Nigel would have been entitled to greater legal protection from suffering if he had been a family pet; we could have been prosecuted for not ending his misery much sooner.

Barbaric law
Like about 80% of the population, we think that the cruelty of making terminally ill people prolong their suffering, when they do not want to is barbaric and that the law should be modernised to allow some people dying miserably from incurable disease more control over how they die…” Continue Reading

Death With Dignity vs. Death for Profit?

“By denying human beings the right to end their lives with dignity and on their own terms, and by prolonging the pain and suffering that they’re enduring, we are effectively torturing them…”

Truthout, Dec 10, 2013 – “It’s time for death with dignity in America.

Just ask Scott Adams.

Adams, the creator of the popular Dilbert cartoon, recently posted an open letter on his website, discussing the prolonged agony that his father was going through during his last days this planet.

Adams writes in part, “I hope my father dies soon. And while I’m at it, I might want you to die a painful death too. I’m entirely serious on both counts.”

He continues, “My father, age 86, is on the final approach to the long dirt nap (to use his own phrase). His mind is 98% gone, and all he has left is hours or possibly months of hideous unpleasantness in a hospital bed. I’ll spare you the details, but it’s as close to a living Hell as you can get.” 

Adams goes on to say that, “If my dad were a cat, we would have put him to sleep long ago. And not once would we have looked back and thought too soon…I’d like to proactively end his suffering and let him go out with some dignity. But my government says I can’t make that decision. Neither can his doctors. So, for all practical purposes, the government is torturing my father until he dies.”

Adams is absolutely right.

By denying human beings the right to end their lives with dignity and on their own terms, and by prolonging the pain and suffering that they’re enduring, we are effectively torturing them.

As Adams points out, we treat our pets with more respect and dignity than we do human beings when it comes to death.

And then there are the financial implications of forcing people who are in terrible pain and who would prefer to end their lives with dignity to instead suffer through their last days of life.

In 2008, Medicare paid for a staggering $55 billion just to cover doctor and hospital bills during the last two months of patients’ lives.

To put that in perspective, that’s more than the 2008 budgets were for the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Education.

And, according to some studies, 20 to 30 percent of the money spent on the last two months of a patient’s life may have had no impact on their condition.

For many of these people, the only thing that money did was prolong the time they were in pain, hooked up to the tubes, wires, and machines that were keeping them alive.

While many people would choose that, and should absolutely be given that option, it should not be forced on everybody.

There are some people who, in the final days of their lives, would prefer to gather their friends and family together, tell them how much they love them and say goodbye, and then drink a doctor-prescribed formula that will allow them to comfortably fall asleep and end their lives.

There’s a growing movement underway to stop forcing people to endure unbearable end of life pain when they don’t want to, and to let Americans decide when to end their lives on their own terms.

Right now, physician-assisted death, with strict guidelines and restrictions, is legal in four states – Oregon, Washington, Vermont and Montana.

And New Mexico may become the latest state to let Americans die with dignity.

This week, a judge will be hearing a case brought by a group of doctors and patients, which would make physician-assisted death legal in New Mexico.

Aja Riggs, one of the plaintiffs in the case, whose uterine cancer is in remission, told local television that while she hopes her cancer never returns, “I want to be able to have the choice, to have some kind of control at the end.”

A lot of the opposition towards physician-assisted deaths and “Death with Dignity” laws comes from religious conservatives, who argue that suicide is a mortal sin.

But interestingly enough, “Death with Dignity” laws actually reduce suicides.

When Oregon and Washington were passing their “Death with Dignity” laws, I had a lot of physicians and patients come on my radio show.

Talking to them, I learned that the percentage of people who actually killed themselves went down when they had access to a physician-provided drug like Phenobarbetol.

That’s because just knowing that they had the option to end their lives on their own terms helped them to become less afraid of death, and of dying in pain.

I had several people call my program who said that they were terminal and they had the physician-prescribed medicine on the table next to their bed.

Each one said that just knowing they had control over when they left this world, caused them, every day, to say, “I can make it through one more day.”

This very common experience of people in “Death with Dignity” states is why suicide rates actually drop when people know that they can generally leave whenever they want.

“Death with Dignity” laws allow them to discuss their own deaths with friends and relatives, in a way that puts them in control, instead of the more common experience in America, which is that terminally-ill people will simply shoot themselves or slit their wrists or overdose with an inappropriate drug, all in secrecy and shame, leaving behind a mess for their loved ones.

We owe it to Aja, and to Scott Adam’s father, and to the millions of Americans suffering with incurable diseases, to see that their last days on this planet aren’t marked by pain and suffering, but by peace and serenity. They deserve to at least have the option to end their lives, and to go out with dignity, when they believe the time is right.

The end of life should be as comfortable and even sacred as we can make it.

By giving dying people the option of when to end their lives, we can bring a much needed measure of dignity and humanity to the process of dying.”

This article was first published on Truthout and any reprint or reproduction on any other website must acknowledge Truthout as the original site of publication.