How the Media Helped Sink Bill August 9, 2005 It recently occurred to me that the media played an important role in the failure of the California Compassionate Choices Act, sponsored by Assemblymembers Patty Berg and Lloyd Levine. By adopting the label “physician-assisted suicide” from opponents of the bill, the press turned itself into a massive lobbying effort against it. Similar legislation was named the Death With Dignity Act in Oregon, where it was passed by voters twice before being enacted in 1997. Just to check my memory, I checked it out at Google News. The search “compassionate choices” +California only brought up two stories in the last 30 days. There were 15 for “physician assisted suicide” +California and six for “doctor assisted suicide” +California. When someone commits suicide with a pistol, the headline doesn’t read “Gun shop-assisted suicide.” When a police officer is ambushed and killed, with a legal assault rifle, it’s not called “NRA-assisted homicide.” Why does the gun lobby enjoy a free ride on the consequences of its actions, while activists fighting for the rights of the terminally ill patients are ridiculed for their efforts? Drumming on the physician connection was a brilliant stroke, since doctors are vulnerable to bad publicity. By implying that physicians would be roaming the streets, looking for slightly-sick people to euthanize, opponents and the media were able to stir up enough controversy to defeat the bill for now. The people most in need of help are too sick to testify at hearings. The roughly five percent of terminally ill patients whose pain cannot be relieved by the most aggressive conventional means have to rely on others to advocate for them. The opposition consists of people who believe God should decide when each person is permitted to die, and expect everyone to have the courage of those convictions. Despite the whining of various critics, journalists generally bend over backwards trying to be fair. Why is this issue so different? It’s as if they had joined anti-abortion groups in calling opponents baby-killers. Are journalists so afraid to come to terms with the horrible choices that face terminally ill patients and the people who care for them that they willingly embrace the dark side? Denying their pain won’t immunize anyone from the possibility of the same fate. We’re all going to die, and some of us will suffer horribly first. The physician’s oath to “first do no harm” is often cited as an injunction not to help patients shorten their lives. How should “harm” be defined? Some say ordering invasive measures such as feeding tubes to prolong the suffering of patients who are beyond the possibility of physical recovery is more harmful than helping them to die pain-free a few days or weeks sooner. Doctors are human, and most of them are passionate about helping others. Sometimes their desire to cheat death at all costs death blinds them to the price paid by their patients. Making it legal and accepted for patients to request help in choosing to remain pain-free at the end of life can open a critically important dialog. Proponents of the War on Some Drugs play a role in this mess as well. Decent physicians are always under threat of theatrical prosecution for prescribing enough drugs to adequately treat severe pain. Ironically, a lot of the same people who rally against palliative treatment and compassionate choice are also active in right to bear arms circles. Why should patients who have been law-abiding all their lives be forced to sneak around, asking their doctors to commit a crime, in order to remain in control of their suffering? Whose business is it besides their own? What kind of person wants to interfere in such a personal decision? Death with dignity is entirely patient-driven. If you think it’s wrong, don’t do it. If it violates the teaching of your church, don’t do it. In fact, even in Oregon, not many people do it. Only a handful of eligible patients ask for the prescription, and even fewer use it. Most say having the option gives them peace of mind. I’m sorry to say it, but the California blew it on this issue. Since Berg and Levine intend to introduce the bill again next year, there will be an opportunity for redemption. I’ll be watching. (Elizabeth Alves believes end-of-life choices are deeply personal. Comments and suggestions are welcome care of the Press or at elalves@htan.org.) |