The case against assisted suicide
The Massachusetts Joint Public Health Committee recently reported out of committee the controversial bill (S.2745) that would legalize assisted suicide. This puts bill S.2745 one step closer to a vote.
Some residents have asked: Other states have passed it, why not us? It is important to note that, compared to the states that have passed assisted suicide laws, there have been over 300 failed attempts at legalization in the United States over the past 25 years. That includes seven times by our progressive Massachusetts legislature and an eigth time by ballot initiative, on which minorities voted no in overwhelming numbers.
Assisted suicide laws are ripe for exploitation. Consider, for example, that no witnesses are required during the time when the lethal drug is administered, and doctors must falsify the death certificate by putting the “underlying condition” rather than the direct cause of death: lethal drugs. And reporting requirements for these laws leave much to the imagination.
Proponents of assisted suicide claim there have been no abuses in 23 years of legalization in Oregon. It is unclear what more evidence of abuse these proponents need, but here is a list of just some of the abuse cases documented by the Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund. This list includes Barbara Wagner and Randy Stroup of Oregon who were denied coverage for their wanted and needed cancer treatments but offered coverage for assisted suicide drugs instead. And these are just the cases we know about - how many more cases of abuse have happened but have not been documented?
Proponents also say assisted suicide laws are a solution to intractable pain and suffering. But pain and suffering, or even fear of it, never make it into the top five reasons people choose assisted suicide. The top reasons people ask for assisted suicide include loss of or fear of losing autonomy, dignity, ability to engage in life’s activities, ability to control bodily functions, as well as being a burden on family/friends. These are existential and disability-related concerns and should be treated with interdisciplinary care and counseling, not a prescription for death.
Another good question to ask is why is the disability community so concerned? Nearly every national and Massachusetts-based disability organization that has a position opposes such public policies. One reason is that assisted suicide laws set up a two-tier system, where some people get suicide prevention and others, namely those with life-threatening disabilities, get suicide assistance. This results in death to the devalued group. Nothing could be more discriminatory.
A recent 70-page report by the National Council on Disability (NCD), an independent federal agency, also found assisted suicide laws to be “rife with dangers to people with disabilities.” The report points out that all the supposed safeguards in bills like H.1926 are hollow and easily circumvented, putting people with disabilities, people of color, and people of economic disadvantage at risk for deadly harm by mistakes, abuse, and coercion.
When our broken, profit-driven healthcare system perpetuates disparities in access to care; when the autonomy of patients in states where this deadly practice is legal is reduced by denials of coverage for curative and life-extending care – even while being covered for help with suicide; and when elder abuse is on the rise and persons with disabilities are far more likely to be victimized than the general population; I call on our legislators to put first things first, and Massachusetts residents to once again reject such a dangerous and discriminatory public policy.
Matt Valliere, is the executive director of the Patients Rights Action Fund and a first responder in Northern Worcester County.
This article originally appeared on Telegram & Gazette: The case against assisted suicide
