End-of-life legislation is not a good ‘option’

Opinion editor’s note: Star Tribune Opinion publishes a mix of national and local commentaries online and in print each day. To contribute, click here.

•••

Although the Minnesota Legislature still sits in recess, DFL leaders are already gearing up for another transformative session. Last week, the House Health and Finance Policy Committee approved, on a party-line vote, the End-of-Life Option Act, a benignly named bill that is a cultural wolf in sheep’s clothing.

The bill is in fact one of the most radical and dangerous pro-assisted suicide codifications in the country. It should be rejected when the Legislature comes back into session next month.

The American Medical Association’s Code of Ethics states: “Physician-assisted suicide is fundamentally incompatible with the physician’s role as healer, would be difficult or impossible to control, and would pose serious societal risks.” Nevertheless, DFL politicians believe they know better, and their End-of-Life Option Act would allow Minnesota doctors to help their terminally ill patients kill themselves.

Individuals, of course, have a right to refuse unwanted medical treatment. A time can come when accepting death and allowing events to their natural course may be the best and most peaceful course of action ahead. Every patient in that situation should have access to compassionate and dignified palliative care, which has blessedly become more and more effective.

According to the National Hospice and Palliative Care Organization, “When symptoms or circumstances become intolerable to a patient, effective therapies are now available to assure relief from almost all forms of distress during the terminal phase of an illness.”

Every single Minnesotan has incalculable worth — regardless of race, religion, disability, sex, education, socioeconomic background and physical or mental health. For our system of law to be fair, it must respect this nobility in everyone and at all times. Our laws do so by keeping the innocent, of any age or condition, from being diminished and slain. Categorizing certain members of our family, friends and neighbors as legally eligible for euthanasia violates our commitment to equality for all and displays a profound callousness to those our law would judge to have lives of less value, such as the sick, disadvantaged, disabled and elderly. Minnesota is better than this.

It is understandable how compassionate people could come down on the side of supporting physician-assisted suicide. Is relieving the pain of the incurably ill not a benevolent thing to do? But, as noted above, that can be accomplished through quality hospice care. And, in fact, concern for physical discomfort is not even one of the most common reasons given by those who have opted for assisted suicide.

In Oregon and Washington, where the practice is legal, the main factors patients cite are loss of independence, the inability to do certain things, the seeming forfeiture of dignity, and concern about being a burden on family and friends. Do we really want to create a coldhearted culture where we thrust the decision of whether to live or die onto citizens during life’s most difficult chapter when it is better left in the gentle hands of the divine?

Even if one is sympathetic to the idea of physician-assisted suicide, the legislation currently being considered in Minnesota is beyond reckless. HF 1930 and SF 1813 do not require patients seeking to end their own lives to first receive a psychological evaluation and screen for mental health disorders that may be driving the decision. The legislation also lacks critical safeguards requiring witnesses to be present when a request for lethal drugs is made or when a patient ingests them. And under the proposed law, Minnesotans would become eligible for euthanasia if given “six months or less” to live. But prognoses can be fluid. My mother’s initial cancer diagnosis gave her just weeks to live 15 years ago; today she is enjoying a healthy, happy and cancer-free life.

Moreover, the legislation does not state whether the six-month timeline includes the normal course of treatment or not. In other words, someone who simply requires kidney dialysis or has diabetes could be eligible for doctor-assisted euthanasia under this broad regime. These bills also do not adequately defend against potential elder abuse, even allowing the beneficiary of a patient’s estate to be one of the signers onto a request for lethal drugs, creating a situation ripe for exploitation.