An Idea Whose Time Has Come

Sometimes a movement's opposition is its best friend. And an opposition commentator is the first to tell the world transformative social change is underway.

A recent National Review cover story warns of a dangerously potent cultural shift. It seems Americans are moving out of frank denial and blind fear of death into a position of empowerment and choice in our end-of-life experiences. This is a bad thing, from National Review's perspective.

The article bemoans a "creeping culture" of suicide and euthanasia. Of course those are their inflammatory words to describe the emerging culture. Our words would be that a culture of dignity, human liberty and personal choice is finally gaining ground.

On the way to arguing against us, the National Review makes some keenly perceptive observations. First, the author acknowledges our movement has "come a long way" in twenty years, and credits Compassion & Choices as the "premier advocacy group" to make that happen. He deplores that today members of "the social and political elite" readily voice their support. And he opines that when they do this "as openly as they would with charities like the United Way, we have reached a new cultural moment."

Hooray for that! I, too, sense that human mortality is no longer the political third rail it used to be. For all the "death panel" hysteria this August and September, those charges never did really get any traction. And the fear monger politicians peddling "kill granny" hyperbole have joined those who embarrassed themselves a few years ago by elbowing their way into the Schiavo family tragedy. They just look silly, opportunistic and mean.

The author also acknowledges our movement's recent successes and calls 2008 a "banner year." Finally, he writes that as individuals, we are "passionately committed, work hard, and feel time is on [our] side." All true, and we are truly grateful for the praise!

As one might expect, the writer opposes personal choice in most important life decisions. A believer in intelligent design, he opposes contraception, stem cell research and choice in dying. (Update: I am pleased to report that the author, Wesley J. Smith, has clarified his pro-contraception position.) The vigor of his opposition highlights the power of end-of-life choice to move society to a new level of respect for personal autonomy and human dignity. His intense focus tags our movement, with Compassion & Choices in the lead, as an especially potent force for liberty.

Social progress takes concerted, sustained effort. For fifty years individuals and foundations concentrated on the key issues of civil rights, equality for women and reproductive choice, to promote human dignity and liberty. Equal opportunity for women and minorities, together with reproductive freedom, were the dominant fields of battle for twentieth century struggles around human dignity, individual autonomy and self determination. Now, at the dawn of the twenty-first century, new battle lines are drawn between patients who struggle for control over unnecessary suffering at the end of life and authoritarians who would keep control elsewhere.

The opposing forces remain essentially unchanged from last century to this. Individuals asserting their own values and beliefs seek control over important decisions in their lives, especially healthcare decisions. Dogmatic churches, autocratic institutions and authoritarian politicians fight to limit individual authority over self.

Who decides if a couple can purchase birth control devices? The most powerful church in the world wants to decide, and, until 1965, enlisted states to enforce bans on contraceptives.

Who decides whether people may opt for treatments developed through stem cell research? Right-to-life organizations decide and enlist Congress to keep federal money away from scientific breakthroughs.

Who decides whether dying patients may ask their doctors to help them experience a humane and peaceful death? The American Medical Association decides, and uses its formidable political power to pressure lawmakers into ignoring the will of the people.

End of life choice is the human liberty movement of the twenty-first century. This is the arena where dignity and liberty stride forward today. People who care about core principles of justice and human dignity feel drawn to this movement. The struggle for end-of-life choices is a movement whose time has come.

" No army can withstand the strength of an idea whose time has come."

- Victor Hugo.

 

Comments

[jgreenleaf]

My father talked for 30 years about not wanting to suffer in a hospital or be warehoused in a nursing home. He made living wills for his summer home in North Dakota and his winter home in Florida. When Schaivo hit, he sent his living will to Jeb Bush. He avidly followed the assisted suicide debate in Oregon.

He lived a great life, was active in his community to the end, was generous to others, and attained the age of 90. He kind of tottered around, but he could still drive his Cadillac and send volumes of email.

When he became sick, it was heartbreaking to let him go, but we had no doubt that we were doing the right thing. For the five days he was hospitalized, it was atrocious. Maybe with heroic measures, he could have been restored to some semblance of life. But not one he would have wanted to live. We had to be quite assertive to make sure his wishes were met.

Iif you talk to older people many will tell you they're not so much afraid of dying as a prolonged process of dying.

If you don't want to do assisted suicide, don't . That's fine. Few people in Oregon do, and those that do are overwhelmingly insured, financially comfortable, and well educated. I don't want to make your choices for you--I also don't want you to make mine for me.

[bmmg39]

Barbara Coombs Lee is way off base.

-- The author of the NATIONAL REVIEW piece pointed out the gross abuses inherent in the assisted-suicide movement/industry in the state of Oregon.

-- Terri Schiavo was dehydrated to death on the whims of her husband, who was unable to provide any evidence, other than two pieces of hearsay, that his wife wanted to die. Her REAL family desperately wanted the government to be involved and prevent her from being killed.

-- The only advancements coming from stem-cell research have come from adult stem-cell research, wherease embryonic stem-cell research has proved to be a beautiful failure. Imagine what we'd be able to achieve were we giving adult stem-cell research even a third of the hype embryo-destructive research has received.

[TRex86]

There is nothing inevitable about physician assisted suicide. I served on a committee that interviewed Derek Humphrey over 20 years ago. He candidly laid out the Hemlock Society's plan for borrowing the legitimacy of physicians as a cover for legalizing euthanasia on demand. Thus began the ever-changing movement to transform voluntary euthanasia into physician "aid-in-dying." It's clear one generation later that this remains a bad idea whether it's time has come or not. Physicians are ill-suited to decide whether someone else's life is no longer "worth living." It is silly to assume that we will pass out those prescriptions without making that value judgment--we're not vending machines. Do you want a physician that's willing to make that choice about your life? The good news over the last generation is the rise of hospice and palliative medicine, which have eliminated the need for suicide as a symptom control measure. We can relieve all the troubling symptoms that occasionally occur at the end. Patients can die in peace, comfort and dignity at home without a lethal OD.

[PlaceboStudman]

The issue shoud not be left up to the doctor. It should be left up to the patient, with the consult of his/her family.

And I wonder what your definition of "peace comfort and dignity is", because there are people for whom that definition includes being relieved of all pain and discomfort, even at the risk of potential OD.

As to your response to me, which does not seem to have cleared moderation, I find it amusing that you speak of "the disabled community" as if we all speak with one unified voice.

while there are, of course advocacy groups that fight against the euthanasia movement, we as individuals have the right, and I would say the responsibility to make whatever decision is best for our own lives, even if that decision results in our death.

I do not know the laws in Amsterdam, or the other countries that have legalized euthanasia, but I do know the Death With Dignity guidelines for the states here in the US where it is legal, and I see nowhere in those laws where a disability would disqualify an individual from making the decision, if they so chose, to use the Death With Dignity laws, so long as they are evaluated by 2 independant psychotherapists, as is the general rule in DWD laws in Oregon, Washington and California

[TRex86]

Fine. Pass a law that takes doctors out of the equation, although it's beyond me why suicide needs enabling legislation. The two states where PAS is legal require two physicians to assent, one of whom to write the prescription. A disabled person who cannot "self-administer" the lethal drugs cannot qualify. Others cannot administer them orally or via IV (according to the law). Having worked in California with a very impressive advocacy agency for the disabled (DREDF) I'm well aware of their concerns about the legalization of any form of euthanasia. I know of no such organizations that support PAS.
I'm coming at this from the physician's POV. I think using us for "aid-in-dying," a vague euphemism for voluntary euthanasia, is fatally corrosive to the healing role of physicians. It's for good reasons that this has been prohibited since the time of Hippocrates. Those few physicians that support PAS tend to have no knowledge and experience in end-of-life care. The most experienced ones oppose it but gladly support hospice and palliative care. To those who really want doctors deciding about the quality of your life: beware what you wish for.

[TRex86]

A "potential OD" is simply not the same as an intentional OD. There is absolutely no prohibition aanywhere gainst giving heroic doses of medications to relieve symptoms--even at the risk of death. I have on rare occasion administered palliative sedation for overwhelming symptoms--and had two patients recover to go home, dying a natural death weeks to months later. These horrible pain/symptom crises are not common, but when they occur any palliative care/hospice physician knows what to do. Furthermore, there is no scientific evidence that aggressive symptom management shortens life. In my experience it prolongs life (a bit) as comfort restores the capacity to resume the quest for meaning that continues up to the last breath.

[natalie0nine]

CHOICE is the key word here.

[Cowboylove]

No one should be made to feel that they have a responsibility to die in any given way, but allowing people a choice is a natural progression. This is a hot bed issue that has many sensitive areas. I feel if it is given intelligent debate and reasoned dialogue, the time may be nearly at hand. We can hope so.

[PlaceboStudman]

Thank you, again, Ms Lee for the work that you and C&C has done to bring this all too important issue to the forefront of human awareness. I only hope that we as a nation can make headway to catch up to the more evolved countries in Europe who have already had this debate and made end-of-life options available to their suffering and dying citizens.

Let us never forget Terri Schiavo, and remember that each and every one of us is potentially moments away from having our life, and our choices taken away from us by people who want nothing more than to control others in their futile attempt to control themselves