Editor’s note: This op-ed is by Bob Stannard, an author and former lawmaker. He is a lobbyist for Vermont Citizens Action Network, a group that opposes the relicensure of Vermont Yankee.
They were on a mission when they arrived and donned their bright yellow stickers declaring their position. The man from Oregon, George Eighmey, a former State Representative turned advocate, was outnumbered 10 to one.
As is generally the case with any issue, those who oppose are much more likely to get involved than those who support. That is the nature of man. Those who think something is a good idea tend to do so in the privacy of their own home. They don’t have the motivation to get off the couch, brave the weather (and their neighbors) and go out to a meeting to learn more. They probably don’t care to speak out.
But it is their inaction that oftentimes provides undesirable results. By the time they figure that out it is usually too late.
The question for the evening was whether or not the individual should have the freedom to determine how best to end his or her life after being diagnosed with an incurable and terminal disease that will end life within six months. The opponents call it suicide. The proponents call it “Death with Dignity.”
Things get sticky when others want to impose their religious and/or moral beliefs on others.
One of the people in the crowd, proudly displaying his yellow badge of opposition stood up and emphatically stated: “We have too much government in our lives. We need to get government out of our lives. We don’t need this law.”
Mr. Eighmey responded that he couldn’t agree more. “It is government that is interfering with your freedom to choose. A law is necessary to get government off your back.” The opponent appeared confused and sat down.
An older woman wearing a yellow sticker rose to say, “People who are dying of a terminal illness most likely have a bottle of Tylenol PM in their medicine cabinet. Why don’t they just take that? We don’t need this law”.
“Presumably, one who is dying is bedridden and unable to go to his or her medicine cabinet. Therefore, without a doctor’s supervision, someone would have to bring this medicine to them and this person would be an accessory to murder. That’s OK with you? The patient would probably not die from an overdose of Tylenol, but they could bleed profusely. Is that what we want?”
Another man rose to ask why couldn’t the patient just use a gun? Eighmey responded saying, “So I understand, you are opposed to a dying patient drinking glass of liquid medicine that would induce a coma within a few minutes, cause death quickly and allow the patient to leave peacefully; surrounded by family and loved ones. Yet you support that same patient using his or her last ounce of strength to splatter blood and brains all over the wall for the family and loved ones to clean up.”
That person also sat down. I understand how one’s religious or moral beliefs may very well conflict with the issues regarding the end of life. The same feelings may be felt toward the freedom to marry act allowing those of the same sex to marry. That issue also collides with the tightly held religious beliefs of many people. I respect those who hold these strong religious beliefs, which may run counter to my own. I have no desire to impose my strongly held beliefs on any other person. In my eyes you are free to choose to do whatever it is you want to do, as long as you do not impose upon me. I’m a Vermonter and that’s pretty much how Vermonters think. Generally speaking they could care less what you do, or who you do it with, as long as you mind your own business.
However, things get sticky when others want to impose their religious and/or moral beliefs on others. They don’t want someone to marry the person they love of the same sex, because they find it disturbing or contrary to their beliefs. They don’t want someone else to have the freedom to control the final, painful moments of his or her life, because their religious beliefs dictate that they are supposed to suffer.
It’s not easy living in a free country. One person’s freedom may impact another’s. We have existed for 250 years guided by laws designed to protect our individual freedoms. We are also very much a Christian nation and sometimes freedom of religion sometimes clashes with freedom from religion.
Death with Dignity is one of those times and the remedies are pretty clear. If you don’t believe you have the right to end your life with dignity then don’t end your life with dignity. If you don’t believe you should marry someone of the same sex then don’t marry someone of the same sex.
What you choose to believe is your business. What I choose to believe is my business. Let’s make a deal. I’ll mind my own business if you’ll do the same. I won’t hurt you. You promise not to hurt me. Then, and only then, can we say that we live in freedom.
Permalink |
Call a spade a spade Bob. It’s SUICIDE, plain and simple. It’s not “liquid medicine” either, it’s POISON. You attempt to link this issue with marriage to give it more credibility. There is no law against suicide but there is a law against killing someone else. Hasn’t there been enough teen suicide and you want government sponsor the act? Jack Kevorkian is out of prison, maybe the two of you could invent a suicide device that runs on solar power.
Permalink |
Mr. Bellini,
The government should protect us from coercion, among other things. If there is no coercion involved in a person’s decision to commit suicide, and a doctor (or nurse or whomever) is willing to provide poison (or medicine) to facilitate that process, then the government should have no role in blocking that decision; without coercion, the doctor is not “killing someone else,” but helping somebody do it on their own. If God opposes that arrangement, then the folks involved will have some uncomfortable questions to answer on Judgement Day, with eternal consequences. Until then, the government should not stand in anyone’s way.
Permalink |
Jamal, I understand your point. On one level I agree regarding any uncoerced action that is not adveresly affecting someone else. I never mentioned “God”, “Judgment Day” or any theological aspects to my objection to the bill. I am concerned that what is uncoerced today, may evolve. Government, legislation and social mores being dynamic vs. static. I also believe regardless of intent or literal application, it sends a message.
Permalink |
Mr. Bellini,
I don’t want you to think I was trying to attribute religious motivations to you; those are actually concepts that occur to *me* when considering physician-assisted suicide.
Permalink |
It does. That’s the point. The message is that a person’s life belongs to that person, not to you. Your opinion, to which you are entitled, should have no bearing.
Permalink |
Dirty secret (actually I don’t think its dirty at all) – doctors are already helping folks die as peacefully as possible – and they should be doing that. A ‘death with dignity’ bill (and yes – we are talking about one being have to have some peace and dignity at the very end of one’s life) will simply mean good doctors can continue to be good doctors without fear of retribution from those who think think life should be extended no matter the terminal suffering involved.
My mother had a living will that included a provision for aggressive treatment of pain even at risk of shortening her life. I know what she meant by that as we had spoken numerous times about her end of life wishes – she wanted the opportunity to go peacefully and quickly when the end was obvious. The laws simply did not (and do not) allow her that simple control over her own person and her own life – instead we had to let her go on her second terms: a slower process of starvation and dehydration.
That is a moral crime. We go to extremes to protect one’s wishes when it comes to dispersal of estates after death – yet we can’t treat the last dying desires with anything close to that respect.
‘Death with dignity’ is about death with dignity. Period.
Mr. Bellini – shame on you for trying to link end of life treatment with the worst damages that teen emotions can inflict.
Permalink |
Great argument, Bob. Pretty clear example of Vermont reasonableness.
Permalink |
Bob, you already know where I stand on this issue, so we’re allies, but rarely have I seen the arguments laid out as clearly or as well as in your piece above. Of course no particular end-of-life solution should ever be imposed on an unwilling person, and safeguards can be built in to prevent that, but those safeguards have to include allowing me to make whatever choice I wish, and a legal, merciful end at a time of my own choosing, with assitence in obtaining the necessary presciption, represents my choice. Other may then choose whatever is appropriate according to their beliefs. Very simple, really.