In Part 2 of this post about dementia, disability, and advance directives, Lamar Hankins challenges Dresser’s assertion that an advance directive that calls for allowing a person to die in the later stages of dementia should be ignored in favor of her view of what care is appropriate.
The idea suggested by some disability rights advocates, that most of us will be disabled in one way or another by the time we reach the end of our lives, has been borne out in my experience. Virtually everyone I have known who has died has met, days or weeks or months before their deaths, the definition of disability under the Americans with Disabilities Act. How can we assure that those who are disabled are not coerced into ending their lives too soon?
Understanding disagreements between DWD advocates and disability rights advocates may be a way to find some common ground between the two groups. This is Part 1 of a multi-part series exploring the issues.
Developments since 1997 in accepted medical practice regarding voluntarily stopping eating and drinking (VSED) and terminal sedation (TS) warrant fresh claims that state exclusion of lethal assistance to a competent, fatally stricken patient is so arbitrary as to violate equal protection of the laws under state and federal constitutions. While the prevailing jurisprudence for the past 20 years has upheld state bans on lethal poisons as a mode of protecting a vulnerable population (dying patients) against abuse or mistake, there are at least 2 cogent counter arguments in any renewed constitutional debate.
In 2017, the District of Columbia (DC) became the seventh jurisdiction in the United States to legalize medical aid in dying, which gives terminally ill patients the option of how and when they die. The new DC statute is nearly identical to earlier enacted medical aid in dying statutes in California, Colorado, Oregon, Vermont, and Washington State. Only Montana legalized medical aid in dying through a court decision, but subsequently, proponents of the act have failed in every attempt to legalize medical aid in dying through constitutional or statutory litigation.
[NOTE: Because of a problem with a component of the website, I am re-publishing this post today. A new post will appear in the in-boxes of subscribers Monday. I had hoped we would get some comments or feedback about this post.]
In Part 1, I discussed the state of death with dignity (DWD) laws in the United States and suggested eliminating the “six months to live” criterion. Here in Part 2, I discuss the Canadian example, other suggestions that may ease some restrictions of death with dignity acts (DWDAs), and add an important precaution that should help protect vulnerable people and provide better medical services.
Whenever I read the arguments of opponents of Medical Aid In Dying (MAID), one that constantly crops up is a religious appeal to how precious life is. For example, “Every day is a gift from God, and you can’t ever let that go.” That is a faith statement. I may agree with it or I may not. It may rise out of the writer’s religious faith, but that doesn’t mean it applies to mine. And religious faith should never be a basis for making public policy. Otherwise, we will have one person’s religion controlling all others – something our founders absolutely opposed.
In Part 1, I began explaining why the disability rights group Not Dead Yet opposes Death With Dignity laws and the right to die. I also provided the most recent data from Oregon’s experience with its DWDA to refute some of the claims of Not Dead Yet.
All of the arguments made against the DWD laws by Not Dead Yet are false or misleading.
Five years ago in Massachusetts, the right to autonomy in one’s body went down to defeat in a vote related to irrational fear by some disability rights advocates working through the activist group Not Dead Yet. Their position was that they would be compelled or coerced into ending their own lives if the initiative passed.
Two years ago, a book of thirty essays supporting the right to assisted death edited by Colin Brewer and Michael Irwin, was published by Skyscraper Publications, Ltd. Most of the essays make arguments familiar to Americans involved in the right-to-die movement, but often with a European (and British) take that makes them fresh. Others tell first-person stories that are as riveting as any heard in the US.
