Tweet
Dying People Shouldn't Be Denied Basic Liberty
Published on Sunday, June 3, 2007 by The Capital Times (Wisconsin)
by Tom McGlamery
Dr. Jack Kevorkian left prison Friday after eight years ' more than
one-tenth of his life ' for giving suffering, terminally ill people
what was rightfully theirs.
Kevorkian's crime was to restore the right to self-determination that
every state government with the exception of Oregon strips from its
citizens.
The federal court system connives in this injustice by in effect
turning a blind eye to the rights of American citizens. To no small
extent, it does so because many Americans are themselves blind to the
suffering in their midst and confused regarding what it means to do
right by both the dying and the bereaved.
Each year, well over half a million Americans ' more than one every
minute ' die from cancer. Despite advances in medical care and pain
management, many of these people will leave this world in a crescendo
of pain and suffering, not because of the intentional cruelty of their
family, friends, or government, but because certain people have decided
that in our final stage of life, you and I should no longer be allowed
to manage our own affairs. In our time of greatest need for them, the
crucial liberties in which we have for a lifetime prospered will be
suddenly dissolved by the state, and we will be left at the mercy of
whatever will kill us.
Our loved ones, who would gladly bear a portion of our suffering, will
be overmatched onlookers faced with a Hobson's choice between giving
and not giving drugs that on the one hand will relieve a portion ' but
likely not all ' of our pain but on the other will obliterate any
semblance of the person they have always known.
My father died from cancer nearly 10 years ago. A few memories of his
final three days endure. One is that in these three days he did not
have a single meaningful conversation with his wife, his three
children, or anyone else. Cancer was around his spine and in his lungs,
liver, abdominal cavity, and brain.
We gave him ice chips, offered him food, and administered painkiller.
In all that time, he and I ' we liked and loved each other ' did not so
much as exchange a meaningful glance. If he had a focus, it was inward,
and the only expressions I heard from him were the groans and pleadings
that gave voice to his pain. On the morning he died he lost control of
his functions, so we cut him out of his bedclothes and redressed him,
all the while hoping that he didn't know what was happening. He died
with eyes shocked wide open as his chest heaved for air. He appeared
more aware than he had in days.
Had my father lived in Oregon, he'd have had his freedom to call in a
physician to help him die on his terms. Quite possibly he'd have
declined to, but at least he'd have had his say. And the mere having
this say, this power, might have given him some measure of comfort.
Research shows that those who retain a physician to assist them to die
often do not ultimately ask for their doctor's help, but that the
knowledge that they can ask eases their minds.
Pain research shows that patients given pumps that allow them to
administer their own dose often need less medication than those who
lack these pumps. Being in control is intimately connected with our
pleasure and pain. We humans crave it. It's freedom. There would seem
to be added dignity in being able to take a measure of it right up to
our graves.
People who oppose our freedom to retain a physician to ease our passing
worry about this control issue. Some fear that the terminally ill will
be pressured into an early death. This seems a legitimate concern, but
one that can be managed through carefully crafted legislation. Others
worry about `playing God.' This, too, seems a legitimate concern. Human
beings can be beautiful and generous, but also callous and prideful.
I think, however, that those who worry about playing God have
misconstrued their situation. Human beings are often responsible for
each other. Every day in our roles as parents, teachers, mechanics,
doctors, drivers, etc., we `play God' to each other in a thousand ways,
sometimes small, sometimes large. We can't get out of it. Playing God
is the human condition.
So the question becomes, `What will you do with your power? What will
you do with your say-so on this issue?' For many religious people,
these questions entail another: `What would God do?'
The answer to this question would seem to be much as it is in the other
matters of life: `Give the suffering their freedom. Let them choose how
to responsibly comport themselves in their final days. Let them decide
how to best reconcile their needs with those of the ones they love.'
To do anything else would seem to risk an evil kind of god-playing, one
that says, `We will rule you and your loved ones in life and in death.'
I hope Jack Kevorkian enjoys his freedom and that all of us are allowed
the freedoms that should be ours.
Tom McGlamery is a Verona resident.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress
Published on Sunday, June 3, 2007 by The Capital Times (Wisconsin)
by Tom McGlamery
Dr. Jack Kevorkian left prison Friday after eight years ' more than
one-tenth of his life ' for giving suffering, terminally ill people
what was rightfully theirs.
Kevorkian's crime was to restore the right to self-determination that
every state government with the exception of Oregon strips from its
citizens.
The federal court system connives in this injustice by in effect
turning a blind eye to the rights of American citizens. To no small
extent, it does so because many Americans are themselves blind to the
suffering in their midst and confused regarding what it means to do
right by both the dying and the bereaved.
Each year, well over half a million Americans ' more than one every
minute ' die from cancer. Despite advances in medical care and pain
management, many of these people will leave this world in a crescendo
of pain and suffering, not because of the intentional cruelty of their
family, friends, or government, but because certain people have decided
that in our final stage of life, you and I should no longer be allowed
to manage our own affairs. In our time of greatest need for them, the
crucial liberties in which we have for a lifetime prospered will be
suddenly dissolved by the state, and we will be left at the mercy of
whatever will kill us.
Our loved ones, who would gladly bear a portion of our suffering, will
be overmatched onlookers faced with a Hobson's choice between giving
and not giving drugs that on the one hand will relieve a portion ' but
likely not all ' of our pain but on the other will obliterate any
semblance of the person they have always known.
My father died from cancer nearly 10 years ago. A few memories of his
final three days endure. One is that in these three days he did not
have a single meaningful conversation with his wife, his three
children, or anyone else. Cancer was around his spine and in his lungs,
liver, abdominal cavity, and brain.
We gave him ice chips, offered him food, and administered painkiller.
In all that time, he and I ' we liked and loved each other ' did not so
much as exchange a meaningful glance. If he had a focus, it was inward,
and the only expressions I heard from him were the groans and pleadings
that gave voice to his pain. On the morning he died he lost control of
his functions, so we cut him out of his bedclothes and redressed him,
all the while hoping that he didn't know what was happening. He died
with eyes shocked wide open as his chest heaved for air. He appeared
more aware than he had in days.
Had my father lived in Oregon, he'd have had his freedom to call in a
physician to help him die on his terms. Quite possibly he'd have
declined to, but at least he'd have had his say. And the mere having
this say, this power, might have given him some measure of comfort.
Research shows that those who retain a physician to assist them to die
often do not ultimately ask for their doctor's help, but that the
knowledge that they can ask eases their minds.
Pain research shows that patients given pumps that allow them to
administer their own dose often need less medication than those who
lack these pumps. Being in control is intimately connected with our
pleasure and pain. We humans crave it. It's freedom. There would seem
to be added dignity in being able to take a measure of it right up to
our graves.
People who oppose our freedom to retain a physician to ease our passing
worry about this control issue. Some fear that the terminally ill will
be pressured into an early death. This seems a legitimate concern, but
one that can be managed through carefully crafted legislation. Others
worry about `playing God.' This, too, seems a legitimate concern. Human
beings can be beautiful and generous, but also callous and prideful.
I think, however, that those who worry about playing God have
misconstrued their situation. Human beings are often responsible for
each other. Every day in our roles as parents, teachers, mechanics,
doctors, drivers, etc., we `play God' to each other in a thousand ways,
sometimes small, sometimes large. We can't get out of it. Playing God
is the human condition.
So the question becomes, `What will you do with your power? What will
you do with your say-so on this issue?' For many religious people,
these questions entail another: `What would God do?'
The answer to this question would seem to be much as it is in the other
matters of life: `Give the suffering their freedom. Let them choose how
to responsibly comport themselves in their final days. Let them decide
how to best reconcile their needs with those of the ones they love.'
To do anything else would seem to risk an evil kind of god-playing, one
that says, `We will rule you and your loved ones in life and in death.'
I hope Jack Kevorkian enjoys his freedom and that all of us are allowed
the freedoms that should be ours.
Tom McGlamery is a Verona resident.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress