Experts Debate Death With Dignity Law

Stephen Harris, a Journalism Major at Multnomah University, interviewed key people discussing the Oregon Death with Dignity Act, a law which took effect in 1998 and allows terminally ill patients the option of suicide. The following interview is published with permission.

Experts Debate Death With Dignity Law
Stephen Harris
Journalism Major at Multnomah University

More than 400 people have ended their lives through the Oregon Death with Dignity Act, which took effect in 1998.
Eli Stutsman, board member of the National Death with Dignity Center and one of the law’s principle drafters, said he thinks that the law provides a vital option for terminally ill patients.
However, Dr. Ken Stevens, vice president of Physicians for Compassionate Care, said he thinks the law wreaks havoc on the medical profession. The Voice spoke to each man.

The Voice: How does this procedure coincide with the Hippocratic Oath?

Stutsman: Physicians debate this. First of all, not all physicians take the same oath. If you think [the Death with Dignity Act] is doing harm, you probably don’t support it, and you probably should opt out.
But many physicians would disagree. If a patient is dying, if a patient is facing a difficult death under the narrow circumstances of the Oregon law, you’re not doing harm by helping that patient hasten the death. And some physicians would say [that] to do otherwise is to abandon them in their real time of need.

Stevens: It’s opposite. It turns medicine upside down. It’s medical killing. When a doctor writes a prescription, a prescription is a written order directing the patient. You’re basically ordering a patient to die.

The Voice: Does this procedure’s legality justify it ethically?

Stutsman: One doesn’t mean the other. It’s appropriate to consider both together. When you deal with law, medicine [and] ethics, you are dealing with the intersection of very important issues and areas that we have been balancing, not only in this country but other countries, for centuries.

Stevens: There was a time in this country when slavery was legal. What is interesting is that the move to legalize assisted suicide has not come from medicine. It’s coming from attorneys. Usually medical advances come from science, and here we have politics that’s affecting what doctors do.

The Voice: What is the difference in public opinion about the procedure when describing it as aid in dying as opposed to assisted suicide?

Stutsman: Assisted suicide is still a crime in Oregon. Even if a physician’s engaged in it, he or she can be prosecuted. What we did is we created a narrow exception.
It’s important to use words that are meaningful and understand the baggage they bring.
And if you appreciate the criminal history and the tragic history associated with assisted suicides and separate that from the context of the terminally ill, you might very well use different words for a different purpose. And you might very well get a more favorable response when you use accurate language.
But if you want to load the question up so that it reflects criminality, so that it reflects all the emotional, tragic suicides you can think of, you’ll drive the support rate down. But I don’t think you’re proving any larger point.

Stevens: Language is used as a weapon in this war. Assisted suicide proponent organizations use euphemisms. A euphemism clouds the issue. If I say I want to die with dignity, what does that mean?
They usurp that phrase so that death with dignity means that it’s death with an overdose. Or they say that it’s aid in dying. That it’s a hastening [of] death. In fact, the word euthanasia is a euphemism, but it has developed a bad connotation so they don’t like to use it. So now we need euphemisms for euphemisms.

The Voice: On a societal level, does this procedure cause us to value our infirm and elderly more or less?

Stutsman: It does not diminish the dignity or inherent worth of an individual to talk about when and how we die. We know today that we’ve modernized curriculums, that we’ve brought more resources and care into end-of-life decision making than we ever had before. It’s been described not only as a silver lining, but the little engine that could.
This debate over hastened death elevates the discussion and has improved end-of-life healthcare in Oregon and elsewhere.

Stevens: Less. Much less. The proponents [of assisted suicide] say that they want to be in control–that there are some things that are worse than death. What things are worse than death? Being in a wheel chair.
When those with physical disabilities hear this, what do they say?
“You’re describing me. So you’re saying that my condition is worse than death?” Those with disabilities have probably been the strongest opponents of the legalization of assisted suicide because they realize the danger that they are in.