[back]The Pope Wants to Tell You How to Die: Will you stand for it?
ince 1980, the Hemlock Society has argued that physician-assisted dying should be one option in the continuum of care at the end of life. Most people in this country agree. Polls repeatedly show that at least two thirds of the population support this choice, including a majority of Catholics. And not only is the sentiment in this country supportive of assisted dying, but more than 70% of the population in Canada, Australia, the United Kingdom, and in Europe want this option. Where the population is predominantly Catholic - such as in Quebec, Spain, and France - the support is even higher. In Colombia, a Catholic country, the equivalent of our Supreme Court declared in 1997 that physician aid in dying is not a crime.
 Faye Girsh, Ed. D. Executive Director, The Hemlock Society USA |
A front organization was set up calling itself Citizens for Compassionate Care; 90% of the money for their anti-campaign came from Catholic sources. Here are some of the large donations: $250,000 was donated from the US Catholic Conference, an amazing $1,080,000 from the Archdiocese of Detroit, another $1,750,000 from other dioceses in Michigan, $50,000 from the Catholic Health Association, and a mere $125,000 from the Daughters of Charity. Michigan Right to Life, which has worked with the Catholic Church to undermine this initiative, contributed $135,000. Cardinal Maida, in Detroit, made nine-minute video tapes against physician aid in dying. Thousands of copies were distributed all over the state together with letters decrying suicide as a sin. On the Sunday before the election he even spoke to the two largest Baptist congregations in Detroit!
Merian’s Friends, the sponsors of the assisted dying proposal, spent $900,000 just to get the signatures to qualify it for the ballot and had $75,000 left to run the campaign. They were outspent $5.5 million to $75,000, or a 74:1 ratio. The Hemlock Society USA, through our political arm PRO-USA, contributed $75,000 - money from the grass-roots supporters to gather signatures and then to run the actual campaign. That’s a lot of money for Hemlock, but nothing compared to the corporate contributions by the Catholic Church and its tax-free “charitable” organizations. Doesn’t this raise a question about the inordinate influence of one religious group over the most intimate practices - how they die - of people who have no interest or belief in that religion?
An interesting poll taken after this election showed that the No vote on Proposal B was correlated with church attendance. Only 13% of people who attended church services weekly voted to legalize physician aid in dying compared with 51% of people who said they attended church “almost never.” Differences between church attendees and non-attendees is significant and profound and probably extends into many areas of belief.
In November, 1994, Oregonians voted to legalize physician aid in dying. After extraordinary lobbying, the legislature tried to reverse the will of the people and sent an initiative to rescind their vote back to them in November, 1997. More than $4 million dollars was spent to rescind that vote, mostly from Catholic sources. Fortunately, the opposition was not able to get away with their religious domination. Not coincidentally, Oregon has the least number of people with a religious affiliation of any state. When Catholic leaders and the religious right saw this happening, they geared up to make sure it would not happen in Michigan. In two years the people of Maine will vote on this and, again, the Catholic Church, with the Right to Life groups, are preparing to get millions of dollars In contributions from Catholic organizations (to say nothing of large Catholic individual donors.)
In Congress, leaders of the religious right introduced a bill to punish doctors who prescribed medications to help terminally ill, suffering patients die. The Hyde-Nickles bill was withdrawn during the last session in the house and senate, primarily because of opposition from the AMA and forty other medical, nursing, and pain groups. They argued that the bill would have restricted the prescribing of adequate pain medication. Both sponsors have sworn to reintroduce it in some form. This is how Henry Hyde thinks about this issue:
We must protect life, the intrinsic value of human life, no matter how wretched... It is stated in our constitution that we have an inalienable right to life. I believe we have that inalienable right from the time of conception to natural death.This philosophy means that every fertilized egg has to become a child - despite the wishes of the woman carrying it - and every life must end “naturally” despite the suffering of that patient, the medical technology which is extending that life, the loss of any quality in that life, and the insistent wish of that person to end the suffering by death.
The wish to extend life for life’s sake can be respected. It is the case, however, that many doctors and hospitals will not provide medical care which is considered futile. Preserving biological existence regardless of its quality - and regardless of the wishes of the person whose existence it is - is immoral and, in many cases, amounts to the torture of the patient and his or her family. The question at issue is whether certain people have a right to impose their values on others who do not hold those values. We cannot permit people to essentially be tortured, to lose their dignity, to endure the distortion of their life story because some religious groups feel that only God can take a life or that suicide is a mortal sin. These are beliefs which have no empirical base, which are a matter of faith, and with which many if not most Americans disagree. Justice Steven Reinhardt wrote for the majority in the 1996 9th Circuit decision in Washington v Glucksberg:
Those who believe strongly that death must come without physician assistance are free to follow that creed, be they doctors or patients. They are not free, however; to force their views, their religious convictions, or their philosophies on all the other members of a democratic society, and to compel those whose values differ with theirs to die painful, protracted, and agonizing deaths.Many Hemlock members have a strong belief in God but see their deity as merciful and one who has given us choice and intellect to be able to make these decisions. For those who are not theists it is insulting to thrust this value on them and insist that they die a certain way to please someone else’s god. As legal scholar and philosopher Ronald Dworkin said,
Making someone die in a way others approve, but he believes a horrifying contradiction of his life, is a devastating, odious form of tyranny.The religious right is not only opposed to physician aid in dying, they want to turn the clock back so that the decision in the case of Nancy Cruzan (1990) by the US Supreme Court would be in danger. In that case the Court upheld the right of all Americans to refuse unwanted medical treatment, including food and water, and to designate proxies to make their health-care decisions for them if they were unable. The Hugh Finn case in Virginia was an example of where these sentiments lie and how even the Governor could be illegally influenced to intervene in a situation in which he had no legal right. Mr. Finn was a TV announcer who, in 1995, was in a severe car accident which left him in a persistent vegetative state. This year his wife asked that he be removed from artificial food and hydration and allowed to die. Religious relatives got into the act, contacted Virginia Right to Life which picketed, held press conferences, and cast aspersions on his wife because she said Finn would never have wanted to live that way. They enlisted the Republican governor who decreed that Finn’s life support could not be removed. Fortunately, the Supreme Court of Virginia made it clear that the law was on his wife’s side and Mr. Finn was allowed to die (albeit by removal of the feeding tubes, thus by dehydration.)
How important is it to our lives to have the right to die? Let me quote from Dr. Charles McKhann, a professor of surgery at Yale, a member of the Hemlock Medical Advisory Board and author of the recent book, A Time to Die: A Place for Physician Assistance:
The cruel fact is that death comes to some only after such prolonged disability and intolerable pain that the person feels emotionally naked and deprived of any real humanity. A dignified life deserves a dignified death... It seems beyond reason that people who manage their affairs successfully in life should turn over the management of their death and dying to others... Some observers fear that allowing physicians to assist in dying would desensitize them to the value of life.The government should not interfere with the right to control the time and manner of our dying with medical assistance. Some, like Dr. Kevorkian, believe it should be governed only by the medical boards of each state, as are nearly all medical procedures. He is a physician who has sacrificed his license, and now may face the loss of his liberty and even his life for this principle. Last year the Supreme Court overturned two appellate court decisions which agreed that state prohibitions against physician assistance in dying violated the 14th Amendment. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court disagreed that it was a constitutional right and left the matter for the states to decide. As democratic as that appears, it ignores the fact that legislators are strongly influenced by pressure groups such as the Catholic Church, and that statewide initiatives are often won by the side with the most money.
My own experience, and that of all physicians with whom I have spoken, is just the opposite. The value of life assumes a new dimension when you have personally helped to bring it to an end.
It has also been argued that the state should have minimal control over our lives; this would be accomplished by allowing the practice of physician assistance to be decriminalized without any specific provisions. Decriminalization has never been seriously considered in any state legislature. Since 1988, the Hemlock Society, With other right-to-die organizations, have proposed state ballot initiatives which would permit the practice, but under careful safeguards. This is the kind of law that was passed by the people of Oregon. Here are the provisions of that law:
• A competent, terminally ill adult must make repeated requests over a period of time.
• Two doctors must confirm the terminal diagnosis.
• A psychological examination is an option if the physicians are concerned about depression, incompetence, or coercion.
• An oral request must be confirmed in writing and reiterated orally after a waiting period.
• All alternatives must be explained to the patient.
• If the patient still wants a hastened death, a prescription for lethal medication is written.
• The patient may choose to take the medication when his/her suffering is too great.
• Neither loved ones nor a physician in attendance is subject to criminal or civil penalties.
• The doctor reports the death to the state health department keeping the name of the patient confidential.
Although this may sound bureaucratic and complex, it dramatically reduces state interference in the very personal process of dying. This law provides the kinds of safeguards which ensure that people who could continue their lives do so. The Oregon Death with Dignity Act has been in effect since November, 1997, and has been used by a small number of dying patients whose death was peaceful, quick, and gentle. Someone said this about it:
This is a permissive law. It allows something. It requires nothing. It forbids nothing and taxes no one. It enhances freedom. It lets people do a little more of what they want, without hurting anyone else. It removes a slight bit of the weight of government regulation that hangs over all of us all the time if we step out of line. So why are the opponents so dead set on getting the law overturned?The Hemlock Society provides information and counseling to people who are contemplating a hastened death or are generally planning for a peaceful death and want to know all the options available to them. Until assisted dying is legal in the 49 other states, we will continue to supply information about self-deliverance, advance directives, hospice care, nursing homes, pain management, and other options. Suicide is never a solution for temporary distress. Suicide shortens the living process; we argue for an option to shorten the dying process. Hemlock does believe that, as a part of the continuum of care available at the end of life, assisted dying with medical help should be an option. We support hospice and better pain relief but even with the best end of life care, a small number of people will choose to hasten their dying process and this should be available so that people can choose a gentle, peaceful, quick and certain death in the company of their loved ones. Knowing that there is a way out will actually extend life.
For more information about the Hemlock Society, visit our web page at www.hemlock.org or call for an information packet at 1-800-247-7421.
“Suicide shortens the living process; we argue for an option to shorten the dying process.”
![[top]](../../uparrow.gif){kind=small}
Dr. Faye Girsh was a featured speaker at the American Atheists St. Louis conference “OPPOSING THEOCRACY - Standing Up To The Vatican’s Political Agenda For America.” We are pleased to be able to reprint the text of the speech she delivered on Tuesday, 26 January 1999.