Medically assisted death: A compassionate option
The people of Hawaii overwhelmingly support medical aid in dying. This is the end-of-life medical practice in which a terminally ill, mentally capable individual who has a prognosis of six months or less to live requests, obtains and — if his or her suffering becomes unbearable — self-administers medication that brings about a peaceful death.
>> Medically assisted death: Wariness is warranted
>> Medically assisted death: Don’t alter definition of medical care
Kamaaina have been striving for access to medical aid in dying for more than 20 years, beginning with Gov. Ben Cayetano’s Blue Ribbon Panel on Living and Dying with Dignity in 1996. Six U.S. states now authorize the option, giving access to 18 percent of the nation’s terminally ill adults.
Don't miss out on what's happening!
Stay in touch with top news, as it happens, conveniently in your email inbox. It's FREE!
Meanwhile, local support has grown steadily. The most recent poll of Hawaii voters, in December 2016, shows a supermajority 80 percent in favor of the option across all demographics including ethnicity, age, economic status and religion.
In an unprecedented show of solidarity, that same month four former Hawaii governors — Neil Abercrombie, Ben Cayetano, John Waihee and George Ariyoshi — together authored an opinion piece published in this newspaper urging lawmakers to pass a medical aid in dying law this session (“Allowing life-ending medication is a compassionate choice,” Island Voices, Dec. 15, 2016).
In over 30 combined years of medical aid in dying in the authorized states, there has not been a single instance of documented abuse. Almost two decades of rigorously observed and documented experience in Oregon demonstrates the law has worked as intended, with none of the problems opponents had predicted.
Hospice and Palliative Care – The Gold Standard
Five bills on assisted-death are before this Legislature. Only Senate Bill 1129 has received a hearing so far and is advancing:
>> SB 1129: Would establish a death with dignity act in which a terminally ill adult resident may obtain a prescription for medication to end life. Licensed physicians would be allowed to prescribe a lethal dose of medication to terminally ill, competent adults diagnosed with six or fewer months to live.
>> HB 201: Would let a terminally ill adult with the capacity to make an informed healthcare decision to request a prescription for aid in dying medication from physician.
>> HB 550: Would authorize terminally ill adults seeking to end their life to request lethal doses of medication from medical and osteopathic physicians.
>> HB 150: Establishes a persons ability to choose the End of Life Option when afflicted with a terminal illness.
>> SB 357: Authorizes a terminally ill adult with the capacity to make an informed health care decision to request a prescription for aid in dying medication from their physician.
While palliative care and hospice programs provide extraordinary comfort to patients and work wonders for many dying people and their loved ones, there are times when even the best palliative options cannot alleviate pain and suffering. Studies have shown that 10 percent of cancer patients experience breakthrough pain and although variable, the prevalence is high (33–95 percent). Patients may also suffer from physical and emotional agony, a loss of autonomy and inability to engage in enjoyable activities. Other symptoms, like fatigue, breathlessness, nausea, vomiting, rashes and open sores and wounds may be untreatable.
Additionally, some kamaaina don’t wish to be subjected to what’s euphemistically known as “terminal sedation,” addled by massive doses of morphine until they lose consciousness and eventually stop breathing. Only the dying person can decide whether their pain and suffering is too great to withstand. Medical aid in dying puts the decision-making power where it belongs: with the dying person.
Honoring ‘Ohana, Caring for Kupuna
Across the islands, we have in common deep family bonds and respect and love for our kupuna. Should they, or any adult family member, become terminally ill with a prognosis of six months or less to live, being able to honor their wishes for a peaceful death, free of suffering and surrounded by loved ones, is the ultimate gift.
Shockingly, opponents of medical aid in dying have said, “If you want to kill yourself, move to Oregon.” It is the height of cruelty to propose that terminally ill island residents should uproot themselves from their home and family at this stage in their life, at their most ill and vulnerable time.
Medical Aid in Dying is Not Suicide
Society evolves and definitions change. We must make it very clear that medical aid in dying is not suicide. Suicidal ideation indicates a mental illness, involving people who are so severely depressed that they no longer want to live. Medical aid in dying involves individuals who would love to live, but can’t. They’re dying — and soon. These people request medical aid in dying not out of despair or depression, but to maintain some dignity and comfort in their final days, to ease their pain and suffering, and to help them die peacefully.
Medical aid in dying is a safe and trusted, compassionate and palliative practice. The law provides a safe, proven option for those whose terminal disease has exhausted all hope for further curative treatment, and who are facing only increasing suffering before certain death. We should always provide quality end-of-life care for people who are suffering from an incurable and irreversible terminal illness. That quality care should include the option to end pain and suffering on one’s own terms when the time comes.
Mary Steiner is campaign manager of Compassion & Choices Hawaii. Chuck Miller is a retired oncologist board-certified in internal medicine, medical oncology and hematology.
6 responses to “Medically assisted death: A compassionate option”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
“In over 30 combined years of medical aid in dying in the authorized states, there has not been a single instance of documented abuse…”
This lack of twittering or tracking ant concerns or issues is a red flag. Remember that dead people can’t object to an unethical process where they were compelled to choose assisted suicide due to lack of Aves to treatment or palliative care, or pressured by family or caregivers to agree, or were hopeless due to untreated depression. Participants may be unaware or look the other way about improprer practices, even though the documentation looks good.
Beware things that sounds to good to be true. They often are.
This bill should have steong safeguards, then it should be passed.
“The lack of DOCUMENTING, REPORRING or tracking a SINGLE concern or PROBLEM is a red flag….”
“…due to lack of ACCESS to treatment or palliative care…”
Here are the elements of medical aid in dying listed by the authors:
1. Mentally capable individual.
2. Prognosis of six months or less to live.
3. Individual requests assisted dying/suicude.
4. Suffering is unbearable despite high quality palliative care.
5. Self-administered medication.
6. Peaceful death.
I would add an other element.
7. There is no available treatment/intervention that could extend the prognosis beyond six months.
Most would also agree that given the life and death nature of this issue, the bill should require that all six or seven elements be present and documented for possible review. The bill should have a process that ensures that any cases of assisted death/suicide absent one or more element are readily detected and penalized. If not, then the rosy picture being painted becomes much more murky. Most would agree that any misuse of this process would be a serious problem that shouldn’t be tolerated.
I don’t think any of the current bills have all of these safeguards, requirements and penalties. Why not?
This may be a reflection of the cynical and myopic approach taken by our current leaders of health policy and legislation. Piticians like Roz Baker and Della Bellati think like politicians. In situations like this with competing interests, their leadership style is to pick the winner or losers based on a popularity contest or which side they find more sympathetic (or whoever is better at getting their ear). They have repeatedly dismissed foreseeable policy problems with unfortunate results. Legislation by wishful thinking creates bad law.
Rather than choosing which competing interests will win and which will lose, real leadership involves appreciating that there is usually some merit to all sides, and that intelligence, wisdom and collaborative effort is needed to craft legislation that balances these competing interests.
In this case there is merit to the calls for access to assisted dying/suicide and also merit in the warnings about potential for misuse. Good leadership would craft a law with compatible provisions that combine both sets of interests.
Let’s hope Baker and Belatti can surprise us by rising to the occasion to make this happen before the end of the session.
Yes, we support this human right. Why should Doctors be allowed to make any final personal decisions for us? Especially when they’re not financially liable to pay for our medical bills.
Unfortunately, patient vulnerability, lack of automomy, and forces that are not in the individual’s best interest (profit, convenience, laziness) are common in the current health system. Let’s not be naive and think that just because many patients are able to make informed and reasonable decisions about assisted dying/suicide, that all will be.
https://www.bioedge.org/bioethics/struggling-woman-with-dementia-euthanised-in-netherlands/12173