A splendid fire sparkles in the eyes of our loved ones, a fire brighter, clearer and more charming than the light of any star. But when that fire burns low and dies out forever, little is left except the memory of a kind voice or a haunting glance from a torn and tattered photo.
Modern medicine boasts of its many conquests over disease, but no doctor has yet subdued the most ancient and formidable enemy of mankind. Nor has any scientist wrested a single inch of territory from this grim and relentless foe. Between the sick patient and the enemy stands a battery of tests, row upon row of test tubes, million-dollar devices to scan the battleground and pinpoint the enemy, chemicals to wither and wear him down and scalpels to hold him at bay. But come he will. And he will arrive in the form of an irreversible calamity.
“Physician-assisted suicide” is a pleasant-sounding euphemism for what earlier generations called “mercy killing.” The term “mercy killing” is preferable, because it brings the ugly reality out of the shadows and into the light of day. Suicide, even when done to end suffering, is self-murder; and no one has the right to take an innocent life. Hence “mercy killing” is currently a crime under the Maine Criminal Code, as it is in all states. Oregon, Washington and Montana have made an exception in the case of physician-assisted suicide.
These laws prohibiting suicide, or aiding others to commit suicide, reflect the thinking of our greatest ethicists, theologians and secular thinkers. They have concluded that no right to self-destruction can ever exist.
The theologian argues that each human life is a gift from God. God grants the right to life, and the corresponding responsibility to preserve one’s life rests with the individual. The philosopher reasons that life is not something over which man can have control.
We do not have to rely on abstract ideas to know that physician-assisted suicide is wrong. If society legalizes mercy killing, the cry will go up to aid those suffering from Alzheimer’s, Lou Gehrig’s Disease and other diseases that render a patient incapable of making an informed decision. From there, it is only a short step to euthanizing those who are “unworthy of life.” That is the irrefutable lesson of history; and it is a dire warning not to legalize euthanasia for any reason.
A case in point is Dr. Jack Kevorkian, a doctor who assisted in more than 100 suicides. He used two devices, one of which he called his “Mercy Machine,” an invention too gruesome to be described here. Suffice it to say that with each assisted suicide Kevorkian grew bolder, until he eventually injected a terminally ill patient with lethal drugs. For that crime, Kevorkian was sentenced to 10-25 years in prison.
Kevorkian obtained an early release from prison on compassionate grounds. Suffering from Hepatitis C and liver cancer, Kevorkian did not choose physician-assisted suicide. He chose to live on and die a natural death.
If physician-assisted suicide is legalized, society must not only weed out the Kevorkians. Society must also make sure that the panels reviewing each case never make an error about the course and outcome of a disease. The members of these panels must also be free from any economic, political and personal motive. Moreover, the doctors and lawyers who make up these panels must be able to see into the soul of each patient asking for an end to life.
In short, society must require that such panels are omniscient, infallible and morally perfect. In order for such panels to be successful, they must be free from the defects which are part of human nature. This is only reasonable, since we are asking them to do a job which properly belongs only to God.
Fritz Spencer of Old Town is the former editor of the Christian Civic League RECORD.
Fritz Spencer’s wholesale opposition to physician-assisted suicide might be more persuasive if he himself–God forbid–were terminally ill and had thought about it. As with the beginning of life/abortion, so with its end, these anti-big govt. folks are obsessed with the most personal decisions that are really done of their business. They care little about the safety net that helps the young and the old, and Spencer probably opposes Obamacare too. It’s only the unborn and the dying, I’d bet, who engage his concern.
Fact is, if your life doesn’t belong to you, then it belongs to somebody else. I may agree with you on a moral or philosophical basis, but never a legal one.
I watched a man that had been cut in half beg me to shoot him (in a combat situation.) What would you, Fritz Spencer, do when you know someone is going to die in extreme agony regardless of what anyone does? Do you help him or let him suffer? What if that man had been you, Fritz Spencer? What would have been your request? Do you think that you are as good as God to say that no one has the right to end their life? People like you, who think that they know better than anyone else what is right make me sick!! I challenge you to respond to this post.
Quality of life matters, even more than length of years. If someone is so sick and in pain toward the end of their life, I think it is more wrong to prolong their suffering. It is not what I would want, nor would I want that misery for anyone I love. I do not think physician-assisted suicide is wrong, but it has to be subject to certain guidelines and not abused.
What a load of crap! Lost me at “God”. Life maybe precious, but death is not.
Fritz Spencer, do you take comfort in the suffering of the dieing? I would bet that you have never spent much time in a nursing home. Not just the sitting room, I mean where the reality of end of life is evident. Those are the rooms where the residents are no longer capable of going to the sitting room.
Talk to anyone who has spent time working in one of these facilities. They will almost always tell you, “It’s not the quantity of life. It’s the quality.”
VERY WELL SAID. AND THE SAME FOR BILL’S MOVING COMMENT. DON’T EXPECT ANY REPLY FROM HOLIER THAN THOU FRITZ SPENCER. IT’S AKIN TO THE INSISTENCE OF MITT THAT AMERICA INCREASE ITS MILITARY AND ENGAGE IN MORE “INTERVENTIONS.” NEITHER HE NOR ANY OF HIS FIVE HEALTHY SONS WOULD EVER ENLIST.
“This is only reasonable, since we are asking them to do a job which properly belongs only to God.”
you really shouldn’t try to impose your questionable belief system on anyone else.
Both physician assisted death (note the distinction, I did not say suicide), and “mercy killing” happen whether they are legal or not. What do you think the ever-increasing doses of morphine to “keep the terminally ill patient comfortable” accomplish? Over the course of several days, the patient, eventually overdosed, slips away “peacefully”. This is the most common form of euthanasia, it’s just not called that. (It is important to underscore, however, that not everyone who receives
morphine at the end of life for “comfort measures” ends up dying sooner
than they might otherwise have passed if the pain med was not
administered–although…we have no way to measure that do we?)
There are other means of bringing a less speedy end to a terminally ill person’s life and suffering. Pulling the plug on artificial life support is one. Another is to deprive a patient of life’s essentials: food and water. I remember one example of this in particular. The family of an aphasic (unable to speak) stroke victim who could not interact meaningfully with those around her, and who was a “total care” patient, decided it was time for her to die. The doctor wrote the order, and only moist swabs were allowed as food and fluid were withheld. It took about eight days for her to die, and all the while, this 90-something year old woman would reach out, reach out, as if imploring for relief. I believe that although she was unable to articulate it, she suffered as death drew nearer. She might have lived in a more or less vegetative state for years longer had this decision not been made.
Right or wrong, these decisions are made in medicine every day. Other choices that result in patient death include withholding a curative measure or treatment that could help a patient because of financial concerns, inability to pay, insufficient insurance coverage, etc. The patient is euphemistically deemed “not a good candidate” for that treatment. With the doctor’s full knowledge that the patient surely will die without the treatment. This is an example of “death panels” already up and running, and as medical resources become more scarce with the wave of baby boomers reaching the age of infirmity, more frequently these decisions about how to allocate resources will result in some people living and some people dying based upon financial considerations. You won’t hear the medical community talking much about this already ongoing reality either.
These examples do not illustrate another way that a person’s life can be ended, which is the topic of the op-ed, as well as Dr. Steele’s recent article: physician assisted suicide. This happens when the patient has had enough suffering and clearly articulates the desire to move on, make the transition, die, but is unable to use the more common means of suicide due to infirmity, lack of strength, etc. The physician duly notes the patient’s wishes, and provides a pain free yet effective means for the patient to end his or her suffering. This can be the most compassionate act a doctor ever will perform, and it is the patient who takes the reins to expedite the inevitable.
No person has the right in a case like this, to judge from the “pulpit” as it were, what the person who is living with the terminal illness has chosen to do. If you have never suffered in the way that some terminal illnesses can ravage the human body, you should keep your sermon to yourself. Save it for your own time, and then be the hero who endures all until your body finally can take no more, and you breath your last shuddering breath. That is YOUR prerogative. But just as the dying person is not lobbying for anyone else to die by physician assisted suicide, you should not lobby for the dying person not have an option to check out sooner if he or she cannot take it anymore. You are not God either, and far be it for you to presume to know “God’s Will” for the individual in question. You would better serve a dying patient by helping him or her to wrap up loose ends, to provide a compassionate ear, to pray with that individual if this would be a comfort, and to help in any reconciliation with survivors. Don’t add more burden to a dying patient’s last days by inflicting guilt about choices that should be available if that person’s suffering is too great to bear.
1972- My father died at 43 of esophageal cancer when I was 5….it took him 10 months to finally die- he lost 100 pounds, he was incontinent, he couldn’t eat, he was too weak to go up the stairs to the bedroom- so he slept on our pull out couch in our living room, he couldn’t bathe himself, he was on oxygen, he couldn’t walk by himself, he was in pain, he had difficulty swallowing….. and dear Fritz let me tell you who took care of my father at home until the day he died at 82 pounds 10 months after his terminal diagnosis of cancer…. My 40 year old mother that’s who not ‘God.’
2012- My mother has been a widow for 40 years- she has never remarried. She is now 80 and has been diagnosed with lung cancer and it’s terminal….so let me explain something to you Fritz….there is a HUGE difference between QUANTITY of life versus QUALITY of life. When the time comes for my mother to go… I have all her advanced directives which instruct the doctors to stop feeding her and give her plenty of pain medication so she is no in pain…and thus she will go to sleep and not wake up. The doctor’s will insure that this happens- not ‘God.’. That being said- I am the one who makes these end of life decisions for her, again not ‘God,’ as these are her wishes and I will make sure her wishes are followed to a ‘T’ you can bank on that.
Now I’m sure you will say ‘you are killing your mother’……ummm no that would be the cancer and her 50 years of smoking….the only thing I am doing is making sure she feels safe, isn’t scared of being sick or being in pain, and has the dignity to simply go to sleep and not have to be aware of the horribleness of her disease when the time comes. As her only child this is not all bout me- it’s about my mother and what she needs and what will make her feel better. Do I want my remaining parent to die? No of course not, but do I want my remaining parent to go through what my father went through? That’s a bigger no. Her situation is what it is……and at 80 I think my mother absolutely deserves the right to choose how and what the end of her life is to be like. It’s HER LIFE not mine and certainly not yours Fritz…..and as so far as ‘God’s job’ God can bite me as I’m sure I will be the one sitting by her bedside, holding my mother’s hand as she draws her last breath….not ‘God.’
Several misconceptions. ALS patients have full use of their mental capabilities (including decisions on their care), most Alzheimer’s do not.
God may decide the span of our lives but modern medical practice (and better living conditions throughout life) have significantly prolonged the average life span. This has led to more painful decisions regarding merciful termination of life, or as well put by another commenter, the quality of life vs. the quantity.
Just think about the far-reaching effects of the Roe v.Wade decision of 1973, allowing the killing of unborn babies throughout the 9 months of being in the womb–and then allowing the killing of partially-born babies(and President Obama has been a strong supporter of the previous) and realize that over 53 million have died since that Supreme Court ruling–thus, what Fritz states is a reality that will be played out in our loved ones’ lives on a daily basis, not on television.
Why “physician assisted,” anyway? “Undertaker assisted” would at least allow for some economy of effort, and with 38 states having the death penalty administered by prison personnel – hardly MDs – it can’t be claimed that the job would be beyond the competence of ordinary people.