In the upcoming November elections, one of the ballot measures seeking public confirmation, labeled Proposal B, is a plan to legalize assisted suicide. Currently, assisted suicide is illegal in Michigan. Dr. Jack Kevorkian's highly publicized campaign of helping the terminally ill end their lives resulted in backlash by some in the medical and religious communities, which led to a 1997 Republican-prompted vote in the Michigan Senate to formally criminalize the practice. Assisted suicide is a very personal topic. Each individual, based on their own collective experiences, sets of morals and religious beliefs, can find a unique perspective on the issue. No one piece of legislation, whether banning or supporting assisted suicide, will adequately cover the concerns of most voters on this highly complex and emotional subject. Therefore, the inclusion of such an extremely sensitive question on a statewide and legally binding public ballot is wrong and will be problematic in the future.
Proposal B is sponsored by an advocacy group called Marian's Friends. The proposal specifically gives a terminally ill adult who is competent, fully informed and a resident of the state, or close relative of a resident of the state, the right to end unbearable pain or suffering through the self-administration of medication to hasten death. Under current law, persons guilty of assisting in this practice may face maximum penalties of five years in prison and a $10,000 fine.
Decisions regarding such matters as whether or not to take one's own life, assisted or not, should be made in consultation with one's family, one's spiritual community and, most important, one's physician. Granting Michigan voters the authority to arbitrarily decide whether or not to keep assisted suicide as an option to the terminally ill may unjustly keep from those who have legitimate reasons to end their lives the legal authority to do so. Putting this issue on the ballot removes patients' right to assert personal beliefs on the matter and replaces them with the general consensus and perspective of the state population as a whole, which should have no bearing in such private matters.
Additionally, with the inclusion of assisted suicide legislation on public ballots steadily increasing, and with the predicted outcomes of such legislation being varied from state to state, problems are bound to arise. Patients may begin to cross state lines to obtain a legal assisted suicide. As well, they may choose to simply ignore the legality of the issue and decide to hastily perform the suicide themselves, with potentially dangerous or ineffective means. One only needs to look at the legacy of Dr. Kevorkian to realize that regardless of legality, individuals with medically justifiable reasons to terminate their lives will do so, often with the help of underground compassionate sympathizers.
Because of these reasons, the question of whether to take one's life should not rest in the hands of lay people unaware of medical issues surrounding assisted suicide, both Michigan voters and Michigan legislators. Rather, it should rest in the hands of the individual, those close to him or her, and the medical community.
Only physicians have expertise in the study of both scientific ethics and human disease - the two key fields that, when combined, may provide the best answers for determining who is justified in requesting assisted suicide and who is not.
09-14-98
| Previous Article | Next Article |
should be sent to: daily.letters@umich.edu | should be sent to: online.daily@umich.edu |