Dr. Christine Metzing’s Commentary, May 21, used the optimist-idealist line of thinking to support her opposition to assisted suicide (an issue being considered in our state Legislature). She was successful with the “hope and faith” positive attitude theme, but unhelpful with the “brass tacks” reality of medically tragic and terminal situations.
She thinks doctors are “supposed to save lives and comfort [the patient], not kill the dying.” I think that doctors have a duty to give full, deep, and complete information as it relates to patient situations. This includes the need to consider – or the need to begin considering – the long-term implications in relevant cases.
The subject of assisted suicide – as emotionally unpleasant as it may be – can come into a life for reasons such as, for example, terminal illness, persistent vegetative coma without definite prospects for recovery, deteriorating dementia and uncontrollable pain.
Also, if you go beyond the limits of Medicaid or Medicare or private insurance, you have to pay the balance due. Quite a few people don’t have any health plan benefits at all to help pay the bills, and other people have various caps and restrictions in their health plans. I knew a person whose wife entered a hospital, ran up a six-figure bill, died anyway, and the billing departments of the providers took away that person’s house. What good is life if, suddenly, you can’t afford it anymore and you become homeless?
Dr. Metzing let us know that she was uncomfortable with the situation in the Netherlands where suicide pills are available to anyone for the asking. This awkward reference to a peculiar situation in another country is really beyond the scope and context of the matter before the Delaware Legislature.
However, my reaction to her article led to me doing an internet search on “poll euthanasia” which gave me links to three major recent studies. In all of these studies, assisted suicide was considered acceptable by a growing majority of the people (66-72 percent) showing maybe some recognition that modern medicine has costs as well as benefits.
Today, the legal profession recognizes the reality of medical tragedy with various devices such as medical advance directives and powers of attorney, elderlaw, etc. Thus people are thinking about unpleasant situations and at least trying to make them less unpleasant. Sometimes that may be the only thing that can be done.
I am a person who is thankful for my life, considers life as a gift, and who, decades ago, would have abhorred the thought of one ending one’s own life. However, as time went by I heard many stories of medical tragedy, emotional trauma, and misfortunes of nature including leaving people in massively crushing debt.
Both of my parents ended up in terminal medical conditions, and the details made assisted suicide unlikely in one ugly case, and impossible in the other case that lasted for decades. However, I would today want a provider not to give opinions to me - or withhold relevant information from me – based on their personal bias or false hopes.
I would also want an understanding of the financial and other long-term implications. To fill in more of the part of the story left out by Dr. Metzing, people should be aware that many books, organizations (advocacy and hospice), and internet websites exist which offer help with end-of-life and caregiver issues. And remember that any final decision about what should be done, or should not be done, should ultimately be up to the patient, not the doctor.
Arthur E. Sowers
Harbeson
-
A letter to the editor expresses a reader's opinion and, as such, is not reflective of the editorial opinions of this newspaper.
To submit a letter to the editor for publishing, send an email to newsroom@capegazette.com. Letters must be signed and include a telephone number and address for verification. Please keep letters to 500 words or fewer. We reserve the right to edit for content and length. Letters should be responsive to issues addressed in the Cape Gazette rather than content from other publications or media. Only one letter per author will be published every 30 days. Letters restating information and opinions already offered by the same author will not be used. Letters must focus on issues of general, local concern, not personalities or specific businesses.
