![]()

Questions surrounding physician-assisted suicide are proving crucial in a year when Michigan voters will be asked to approve a ballot proposal legalizing euthanasia in November.
Conflicting opinions were discussed last night at a public forum titled "The Aid-in-Dying Vote: Are Physician-Assisted Suicide and Hospice Care Incompatible?"
Edward Pierce, one of the three featured speakers and chair of Merian's Friends - the organization that has led the fight for physician-assisted suicide - started off the discussion with a question that encapsulated the forum's intent.
"Five years ago, I asked myself, 'Should it be legal?'" Pierce said. "I thought it should be legal - for my wife, for my children, for my parents, for you."
Pierce outlined Proposal B's criteria and scope in the physician-assisted suicide debate. If approved, Proposal B would allow terminally-ill patients with six months or less left to end their lives with physician prescribed medication.
Patients would be obliged to start the process themselves, get confirmation of their illness from two physicians and consult a psychiatrist before medication is prescribed. There would be a seven-day waiting period and patients must be aware of other options, including hospice care and pain control.
"We've tried to write a proposal that's reasonable, which will allow terminally ill, mentally-competent adults to hasten their deaths," Pierce said. "People on the whole want to live, and physicians want them to live."
Most polls show popular support for physician-assisted suicide throughout the state, but the proposal still faces a well-funded opposition.
Jessica Berg, academic director of the American Medical Association Institute for Ethics, commented on the legal and institutional complications the bill could face if approved.
"The Supreme Court has said ... it's really up to states to decide on doctor-assisted suicide," Berg said.
Berg compared the ballot proposal to the Oregon Right to Die Law, which has similar provisions for physician-assisted suicide, but not as many "safeguards." For example, it does not require a psychiatric consultation.
Berg added that the proposal could face challenges about the criterion chosen for beneficiaries of the law. The proposal would open debate on issues such as whether patients with one year to live have the right to die, or whether a seven-day waiting period is adequate.
These defined characteristics of the proposal could be questioned in court, Berg said.
Berg also pointed to efforts by the Republican-led federal government to pass a law allowing the Drug Enforcement Agency to restrict or punish physicians who prescribe medication for assisted suicide. Berg said the bill could have a "chilling effect" on doctors considering whether to help their patients end their lives.
Berg added that the proposed bill would counter the Supreme Court's earlier decisions, which allow for states to legislate their own assisted-suicide laws.
Mary Lindquist, director of Arbor Hospice, spoke about the value of a dying person's last few days. She emphasized the pain during this period of time can be greatly eased by medication.
"I have learned ... that so much can happen in this time that is valuable to patients and their family," Lindquist said. "With all the medication at our fingertips, we can keep patients comfortable. We focus on living, not on dying."
The audience reacted with strong applause to Lindquist's comments. People in attendance were invited to ask questions and remark on the issues.
At one point, John Severin, a family medicine physician, raised the question regarding the pressures facing elderly patients, who may be convinced to consider physician-assisted suicide because of outside pressures.
"My concern is that elderly patients are vulnerable to social, economic and family pressures," Severin said.
Others saw greater danger in the proposed law.
"I believe this will very quickly deteriorate into suicide on demand," said Mary Ellen Donnely, an audience member.
- Daily Staff Reporter Karn Chopra contributed
to this report.
09-23-98
| Previous Article | Next Article |
should be sent to: daily.letters@umich.edu | should be sent to: online.daily@umich.edu |