M.D. Hopes Oregon Loses Court Battle to Preserve Doctor-Assisted Death
by Mary Rettig and Jenni Parker
October 6, 2005
(AgapePress) - As the battle over physician-assisted suicide is waged between the federal government and the State of Oregon in front of the U.S. Supreme Court, one Oregon doctor says the law in his state permitting doctors to prescribe lethal doses of medication to their dying patients on request must be stopped. In a case that religious conservatives and pro-life advocates are watching closely, Chief Justice John Roberts has sharply questioned an attorney arguing for the preservation of Oregon's physician-assisted suicide law. The state's voters have twice endorsed the practice of doctor-assisted suicide, but the Bush administration has aggressively challenged the state law, which is the only one of its kind in the U.S. Oregon prevailed in a lower court in a lawsuit over its physician-assisted suicide law, which has been used by 208 people to date.
Former Attorney General John Ashcroft decided in 2001 to go after doctors who assist patients in taking their own lives. His reasoning was that hastening a person's death is an improper use of medication and a violation of federal drug laws -- beliefs with which many who value the sanctity of life concur.
Dr. Kenneth Stevens, vice president of Physicians for Compassionate Care, is one Oregon doctor who opposes the state's physician-assisted suicide law. One reason, he says, is the public needs to realize that many patients have not been using doctor-assisted suicide for the purpose of ending unbearable pain from an illness, as many people might like to believe.
In fact, Stevens notes, "We don't have a single case where a person has been in uncontrolled pain when they've taken the lethal drugs. They're doing it more for psychological and for social reasons."
Also, the doctor points out, people may not realize that there has been a negative shift in attitude toward terminally ill patients in Oregon. As a result, he contends, once a patient receives the lethal prescription, doctors typically show no incentive to care for the patient's needs before the person takes his or her life.
Stevens says while the federal government pleads its case before the Supreme Court to stop Oregon from improperly using drugs to end the lives of the terminally ill, the pro-euthanasia crowd is failing to recognize the implications of keeping the practice legal. For a frightening model, he points to the Netherlands, where euthanasia and doctor-assisted suicide were tolerated in practice and unofficial law for some 20 years before being legalized when the "Termination of Life on Request and Assisted Suicide (Review Procedures) Act" took effect on April 1, 2002.
"Doctors in the Netherlands have described situations where doctors have been basically using euthanasia as a quick fix because they don't know otherwise how to take care of patients," the Physicians for Compassionate Care spokesman asserts. "So it actually has a harmful effect on the development of new techniques to try to help patients."
Stevens believes any time doctor-assisted death is allowed to become an "easy out" for medical professionals, patient care has a tendency to become compromised. Already, he notes, a study on terminally ill patients in Oregon has shown that their level of care by doctors has deteriorated since physician-assisted suicide became legal in that state.
According to an Associated Press report on the arguments before the Supreme Court, retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor appeared ready to support the law allowing dying patients to obtain lethal doses of medication from their doctors in Oregon. But although she could provide the fifth vote in favor of the state law, it is likely O'Connor will be off the court before the case is decided. In the event of a 4-4 tie, a new justice -- perhaps nominee Harriet Miers -- would cast the deciding vote.
