California end of life is respectful, should pass
September 15, 2015
The “End of Life Option Act” passed in the California state assembly last Wednesday and in the state senate on Friday. The next step in the bill’s journey is deliberation by Catholic governor Jerry Brown. If Brown signs the act, it will go into effect beginning January 2016. The Act, also called the “right-to-die bill,” would permit the practice of euthanasia in California, meaning that terminally ill patients — specifically those who are mentally sound and have six months or less to live — can choose to end their lives with the aid of drugs prescribed by doctors and physicians. Some constituencies, including the Catholic Church and the GOP, staunchly oppose euthanasia and the California bill, arguing that doctors have a moral responsibility to keep patients alive and that suicide is a sin.
While we can agree that doctors have a moral responsibility to their patients, this should not always translate to keeping them alive for as long as possible. They should take measures that best serve the patient’s well-being, but unfortunately death is sometimes the best treatment a doctor can give a patient. Keeping a terminally ill patient alive, as opponents advocate, requires the patients to endure intense emotional and physical pain and pay for costly treatments, medicine and hospital stays, which are all futile or ineffective in the face of terminal illness. This is inarguably a torturous existence, but if one should choose to persevere through these conditions, that is still that choice. However, if one should want to escape this incredible suffering, that choice should also be available.
Ultimately, the controversy boils down to freedom. Regardless of your personal ideas of morality, if you support individual liberties, you should support this bill. Every human deserves the right to make decisions about their own life. Just as women have the right to use birth control and to have sex with whomever they so choose, the terminally ill deserve the right to choose what medicine they put into their body and for what purpose. The availability of birth control does not promote sexual promiscuity, but instead allows individuals to choose to practice safe sex. Similarly, this bill does not encourage or champion assisted suicide, but instead allows individuals to choose to end their suffering. Anyone who disagrees with the concept of assisted suicide will retain the right to reject or abstain from such a practice. But those who most desperately need it will finally have the option open. The bill is waiting on governor Jerry Brown’s signature, and if he truly believes in the basic rights of his citizens, the decision to sign should be an easy one.
Opinions expressed on the editorial pages are not necessarily those of WSN, and our publication of opinions is not an endorsement of them. Email Katrina Wilson at [email protected].
Bradley Williams • Sep 17, 2015 at 11:01 am
In Oregon and Washington heirs are allowed to participate from the start to the end, eviscerating intended safe guards. Everyone involved in the lethal process gets immediate immunity and family members are not required to be contacted. A witness is not required to confirm the dose was self-administered so if they struggled and changed their mind who would ever know? In addition these laws prohibit investigations or public inquiries leaving no recourse for surviving family members who were not contacted. Does that sound like good public policy to you? This is very dangerous public policy that does not serve the common good. It serves the health insurance corporations very well. All of these loopholes are embodied in California’s ABX2-15. A veto is in good order.
Oregon and Washington should amend their initiative-sound-bite driven dangerous laws.
Patrick Heindel • Sep 16, 2015 at 2:59 pm
SB-128 does not permit euthanasia, but rather “Physician Assisted Suicide,” which are two very different things. PAS puts the final decision and act in the hands of the patient, giving them autonomy throughout the process. The physician can prescribe life-ending drugs (assuming the patients meets the strict criteria), but the patient ultimately chooses whether or not to take those drugs, and has full control over how, when, and with whom they will die. Euthanasia implies the physician taking an active role in facilitating dying, i.e. injecting a drug, which is a much more ethically challenging concept, and NOT what is being proposed in this bill. Please be careful with your language.