The question of whether terminally ill patients can get help from their doctors to end their own lives is heading toward debate again this year in Massachusetts.
The state Legislature, which has stopped similar bills in their tracks multiple times since 1995, will likely consider another one soon. Rep. Louis Kafka, D-Stoughton, is preparing this month to make his fifth try at getting his colleagues to consider a “death with dignity” law. His last attempt failed to make it out of the Joint Committee on Public Health last June, though support has been increasing.
The lawsuit of a cancer-stricken physician from Falmouth, which asserts the man’s right to obtain a lethal dose of medicine when his death is near, will be heard in court this year.
And August is the deadline for advocates to submit a petition to bring the issue directly to voters in next year’s election. Since the narrow defeat of a “death with dignity” ballot question in 2012, this is the first opportunity for the nonprofit Compassion & Choices to again bring it before voters.
Amid all this, the Massachusetts Medical Society, which has long opposed such physician-assisted deaths, has just agreed to survey its 25,000 members to gauge whether it is time to change its stance. A recent heated debate at a meeting attended by 200 members indicated growing support for reconsideration, particularly among younger doctors. That comes in advance of a report the American Medical Association is preparing to release this year.
This is welcome news in light of the traction the issue is gaining. Even a neutral stance by the medical association would open the door to a freer discussion of the issue among doctors.
Decisions by medical associations in California and Colorado to switch from opposition to a neutral stance on the issue were followed by laws being passed allowing doctors in those states to help some terminally ill patients to die when they choose. Other states that have adopted similar laws are Vermont, Washington, Montana and Oregon. Washington, D.C., is about to get on board, too.
And last June, Canada joined Switzerland, Belgium and the Netherlands in sanctioning such deaths.
In his farewell speech a few days ago, outgoing Gov. Peter Shumlin of Vermont revealed that his terminally ill father had ended his own suffering in 2014 thanks to the law the governor had signed the year before. Shumlin cited that end-of-life law as one of the achievements of his administration.
Given these developments, we welcome the debate in Massachusetts.
Locally, there has been growing interest in end-of-life issues with public forums on the topic attracting large crowds. Last spring the Cooley Dickinson Hospital in Northampton and 15 area libraries collaborated on a series of community conversations based on the best-selling book “Being Mortal, Medicine and What Matters in the End” by Dr. Atul Gawande. Dr. Jeffrey Zesiger, director of palliative care at Cooley Dickinson, has been a leader in promoting public awareness about questions of death and dying and end-of-life care.
The arguments on both sides of the “death with dignity” issue are strong and passionate. For many people, religious beliefs fuel their objection and some point out that doctors who would prescribe lethal medicines to hasten death put themselves on a slippery ethical slope. The Catholic Church waged a heavily funded campaign — backed by the Massachusetts Medical Society — against the ballot question in 2012.
For others, forbidding such assisted deaths is a matter of prolonging death rather than preserving life. The Falmouth physician who filed the lawsuit says his objective is to maintain his dignity and quality of life to the end.
Still others argue that doctors already prescribe high doses of painkillers to terminally ill patients, knowing the deadly effect they will have on the body’s organs.
The debate even includes disagreement over terminology: The long-used term “physician-assisted suicide” is considered by one faction unfairly negative and inaccurate and, conversely, “medical aid in dying” — which advocates prefer — is said to skirt the ethical issues.
The points, highly emotional, are all important ones that deserve attention. We hope they get a full and reasoned airing as the year unfolds.