Path: bloom-picayune.mit.edu!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!americast.com!americast.com!americast-post
Newsgroups: americast.wpost
From: americast-post@AmeriCast.Com
Organization: American Cybercasting
Approved: americast-post@AmeriCast.com
Subject: A Vote Against Euthanasia=
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 92 08:40:52 EST
Message-ID: <34.1992Nov7.084053@AmeriCast.com>

A Vote Against Euthanasia=

 VOTERS IN California this week defeated a ballot initiative
described by supporters as designed to allow death with dignity
for terminally ill patients. It had been opposed by a powerful
coalition of churches, the California Medical Society and the
American Cancer Society, but it was more than organized lobbying
that influenced voters. Voters in Washington State defeated a
similar proposal last year. If these elections prove anything, it
is that voters rightly remain reluctant to cede, even to doctors,
the life-and-death powers contemplated by the proposals.

 Medical technology has made it possible to prolong life beyond
the point where living is pain-free and recovery is possible.
Over the course of the past 15 years, through litigation and
legislation, it has become acceptable to allow patients or their
chosen surrogates to make decisions about the continuation of ex-
traordinary medical efforts like providing life support by
respirator or artificial feeding. Living wills, durable powers of
attorney and federal laws requiring hospitals to advise entering
patients of their rights in this area have been accepted as both
sensible and ethical.

 Going well beyond these is another proposal, published by three
physicians this week in the New England Journal of Medicine. They
favor the legalization of what they call "physician-assisted sui-
cide," which would allow doctors to comply with the request of a
seriously ill, competent adult, for pills that would end life
whenever the patient chose to take them. The writers suggest a
number of safeguards including written requests with witnesses, a
second medical opinion and the existence of an incurable afflic-
tion that causes relentless suffering.  Thirty-six states now
prohibit this kind of assistance, but in fact there has never
been a successful prosecution of a doctor for such an act.

 The California and Washington proposals would go beyond any of
this by authorizing "voluntary euthanasia," where at the request
of a terminally ill patient, a doctor could actually be the agent
of death, the one who kills by injection or other means. This is
a great leap with terrible risks. Proponents often cite Holland
as a place where enlightened euthanasia is practiced and, though
not technically legal, tolerated by the government. However, re-
cent studies in that country reveal that in more than 1,000 cases
a year physicians concede that they provide injections without
patient request, simply because they have decided it is the best
thing to do. Recently, the Dutch Pediatric Association asked the
government to permit euthanasia of infants whose prospective
quality of life is deemed to be low. These trends refute the ar-
gument that embarking on euthanasia under limited circumstances
does not lead to a slippery slope.  California voters were right
to be wary.<02:24 11-07C9999-----

Copyright 1992, The Washington Post.  This story is from the
Washington Post's Capitol Edition On-Line and is not to be ar-
chived or redistributed.

For more information, send-email to American Cybercasting Cor-
poration (usa@AmeriCast.COM)