Charles Cox, Duluth, Minnesota, Postal Worker

–..it is self delusion to believe that 'ending it all' does in fact end it all."

The criteria for this essay stipulate that it should be based on personal experience. My experience in­cludes having known a good many whose pain and suffering was appreciable and/or prolonged, many who thus have been considered candidates for suicide, either assisted or otherwise. My maternal grandma, for example, contracted uterine cancer which eventually metastasized. A year or more of suffering transpired between the initial diagnosis and her death at age 76. I was in the room as she breathed her last, lying on her back, mouth open, her wasted body arched unnaturally on the hospital bed.

Other examples: my father died in his early fifties after some months of intense suffering, the compound effect of severe rheumatoid arthritis and an operation in which his gangrenous intestines were removed. Just this winter, cancer also claimed the life of my neighbor Pat, who lived two houses down from us. She expired after enduring a couple of years of various "therapies" as bad as the disease. Doug, in his mid-forties, my personal physician till about a year ago, is now living with and being treated for a virulent form of brain cancer. Without a miracle, his wife and young children will lose him.

I could go on. But the point is that none of these persons did -- or in Doug's case will -- opt for suicide. None considered, or would consider, suicide or assisted suicide a viable option. Nor would any have argued for legalization of suicide in any form. I agree with their point of view. In the brief space remaining, I'd like to develop just one argument as to why.

To be or not to be: that is the question.

As most know, Shakespeare's Hamlet utters that line as he contemplates ending his life by his own hand. His soliloquy tends to make suicide look appealing ,justifiable, even courageous. So also do advocates for assisted suicide make the practice whose legalization they espouse appear to be a plausible, appealing op­tion, as they rationalize ending one's life "with a little help from one's friends."

In all fairness to Shakespeare, however, it needs to be noted that Hamlet's monologue at least momen­tarily touches on the possibility that there might be "something after death to dread" –[An] undiscovered country from whose bourn

No traveler returns, [the prospect of which]

...  makes us rather bear those ills we have

Than to fly to others that we know not of

Are the advocates of assisted suicide at least as balanced as Shakespeare in their treatment of the topic? Would that they were! They say much of assisted suicide's putative benefits (death with dignity, and so on). But I have yet to hear significant "air time" given to the possibility that a postmortem life exists – let alone, more importantly, an afterlife with dire consequences in perpetuity for those who enter into it unprepared.

I, for one, am persuaded that there is an afterlife; that physical death is not annihilation, but rather a doorway into an existence of another kind; and that it is self-delusion to believe that "ending it all" does in fact end it all. I base these convictions primarily on biblical texts, secondarily, also upon observation. In the cycles of life generally, and especially in this present season of resurrection and regeneration in the natural world, there may be found manifold intimations of a life to come, if we will but shed the scales covering our spiritual eyes.

Speaking of self-delusion, it is equally delusional, in my view, to believe that the doorway of death opens only into a blissful eternal state. Justice demands that eternity have a dark side, too. Those who contem­plated going through with suicide in hopes of release from pain, sorrow, Alzheimer's or what-have-you should first consider whether launching out from their familiar pain into the "undiscovered country" may not deposit them in a condition incomparably worse than their present one. Likewise, those disposed to "help" potential suicides should also spend some time reflecting on the central ramifications of rendering their "Kevorkian assistance."

Because of these considerations and others, which advocates of assisted suicide blithely ignore or gloss over, I think it folly to talk of legalizing assisted suicide. To encourage those who contemplate this practice to follow through with it could well be to say to them, in essence: to hell with you!

If any is to take away the gift of life, it should be the Giver of it and He alone.

GO TO 2001 BIOGRAPHIES

Mary S. Fishier-Fisk, Dennis, Massachusetts, Farmer, Computer Trainer

"We who loved her and would have acted to relieve her suffering, could only stand helplessly by..."

We are all going to die. Let's be clear about that – we are all going to die.

The only uncertainty is when and how. The question becomes not should we be able to have someone help us, voluntarily and intentionally, take our own lives; but rather, should we be able to have someone help us choose the time and the manner of our inevitable demise? But first we must answer the larger question:

should we be able to choose the time and the manner of our own end?

I say yes; not yes, but; not yes under certain circumstances; not yes if some authority certifies that we are competent to make such a decision. I say yes unconditionally; yes as the solemn, natural right of all adult human beings to the privacy of their own bodies and the dignity of their individual lives; yes to the right to choose death, voluntarily and intentionally.

Mankind's keen sense of self-preservation prevents most suicide, and despite current laws, those deter­mined to end their lives do so every day with, to most of us, far less cause than the ancient Jews of Masada or those future sufferers who might seek legally assisted suicide.

Then, some may say, let those who will, kill themselves while they still can and keep the rest of us out of

it. That's just the problem. Those who will won't not until life is no longer worth living, and then, all too often, they can't.

My grandmother, a 1911 university graduate of iron will and strong convictions, made a mutual assistance pact with her family doctor. Each agreed, in the event of an insufferable terminal illness, to aid the other in speeding the end. When the good doctor, knowing his own unbearable pain and hopeless prognosis, begged my grandmother to fulfill her long-standing promise, she couldn't; not because she had changed her mind or feared personal repercussions, not because she had lost her nerve or gotten religion. She couldn't because she didn't want him to die. Despite his pleas for release, she allowed him to linger because she needed him.

Nana's decision delayed, but she could not prevent the doctor's death. When grandpa contracted a viru­lent, excruciating, inoperable lung cancer, he died peacefully with an unnatural swiftness. Nothing was said; everyone was relieved.

Today, some doctors quietly turn a blind eye to self-over dosage of morphine drips. A friend, dying of painful and incurable bone cancer, surrounded herself with supportive family and friends and used this method to ease her own passage. Yet, if she had been unable to administer the morphine herself, no one could have done it for her legally. She broke the law to do it herself, but a successful suicide is beyond any punishment the law might impose.

For those who state over a lifetime the unwavering belief that, when the time comes and all futures are past, a death as swift, dignified and pain free as possible is preferable to lingering in physical and mental agony, the ultimate irony is a disease or injury which incapacitates them beyond their own ability to act. My mother was such a person. She had often expressed her fear of Alzheimer's Disease, of losing her mind and becoming nothing more than an empty shell.  To her this was a fate worse than death. She did everything possible to spare herself, including letting us know her wishes. Yet, when she died of the human equivalent of Mad Cow Disease, her brain as mangled as any Alzheimer's victim, her worst fears were realized. We, who loved her and would have acted to relieve her suffering, could only stand helplessly by as she lost her mind and her dignity, which to her were her life. She was my mother, but I could not provide for her what I knew to be her most fervent desire and what, in similar circumstances, I could have given my pet.

Would there be abuse of legally assisted suicide? Unequivocally, no, for any abuse would be murder –and no one is asking for legalized murder. By definition, suicide – the taking of one's own life – must be voluntary and intentional. That choice should be the individual's alone. Let us have the strength to help those who now suffer needlessly, who can no longer implement their own desires, but whose wishes are clear. A civilized society can do no less. For some day, we are all going to die.

GO TO 2001 BIOGRAPHIES

William P. Matz, Windsor, California, Mortgage Broker

"~..if assisted suicide were used 21 years before, my son would never have known his grandfather."

Nine months ago, a man was hospitalized with double pneumonia normally fatal at 87. But he recovered, going home on his 60th anniversary. A month later he was diagnosed with terminal kidney cancer that had spread throughout his body. He had been given another terminal kidney cancer diagnosis 21 years before! Despite his condition, his pain was mostly controllable. Even on his last day, he was lucid enough to ask his wife to kiss him then he fell back asleep, dying several hours later. Assisted suicide would have deprived him and his extended family of those last precious days together. And if assisted suicide were used 21 years before, my son would never have known his grandfather.

An old proverb warns us "the road to hell is paved with good intentions." Ignoring theological implica­tions, the proverb clearly admonishes that good intentions do not guarantee morally- acceptable actions. Rarely do we see such a dramatic illustration of the wisdom of that proverb as in the issue of assisted suicide. On one hand the motivation (intent) is one of the noblest possible: compassion, the desire to relieve human suffering. On the other hand this noble intent manifests itself in the ultimate moral evil, the taking of innocent human life, an action that has been universally condemned throughout history. Hence we see the wisdom of the proverb. Stripped of its emotionally-seductive motivation of easing human suffering, we must confront the cold reality that in assisting suicide, the participant takes innocent life.

To accept assisted-suicide, we must admit a willingness to discard the prohibition on the taking of inno­cent life. But no one suggests the prohibition must be thrown out entirely, i.e. that humans be allowed to take life without restriction. So we face the daunting, and I suggest impossible, task of defining when it would be permissible to take innocent human life.

Brevity precludes more than a cursory review of problems involved creating such a definition. Most proposals for assisted suicide restrict the terminally ill. But what constitutes terminally ill? Life expect­ancy? Specific diseases or conditions? Must pain reach a certain level, and how would it be measured? What if pain can be managed, as is normally the case? Would only physical pain count, or could mental pain qualify? If so, would that not give carte blanche to anyone who desired suicide?

Other practical difficulties include defining who decides. The victim alone? Consulting doctors? Some­one holding a durable power of attorney for health care? What if the holder is financially interested (an heir)? Imagine the potential lifelong guilt of a person in that position.

Another broad objection to assisted suicide flows from the precedential impact of its implementation. Opponents have rightly noted that once we cross the long-standing and heretofore rigid threshold against the taking of innocent life, we have embarked on a slippery slope, in which further types of taking life can no more easily become permissible. We could then begin to make a case for terminating life in cases of babies with severe birth defects or badly-injured or diseased people. While permitting assisted suicide does not require such expansion, it unarguably increases the likelihood. Finally, the concept of assisted suicide rests on a fundamental fallacy. It assumes humans are totally autonomous with no accountability to others for actions affecting us. Yet we have long known the contrary to be true. No one put it more succinctly than John Donne, over 300 years ago: "No man is an island." Indeed the very concept of society entails mutual interdependence and accountability. Whether as family or friends, we have obligations to one another that restrict our freedom of action. Anyone who assists suicide denies these obligations. But society cannot continue to exist in the face of such values. By offering us an easy way out from life and suffering, assisted suicide encourages people to default on their social responsibilities. Sick people are encouraged to avoid difficult treatments that might prolong life and allow them to continue to fulfill responsibilities to family and friends longer. Donne eloquently recognized that we do not live in a vacuum when he concluded, "Ask not for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee." We are all diminished by the loss of a fellow human, and society should never encourage that loss.

GO TO 2001 BIOGRAPHIES

Michael Ned Palmer, Portland, Oregon, Writer

"The Oregon law is well thought out..."

If we are talking about actual assisted suicide, on the model of Oregon's current law – which is not euthanasia – then, "Yes." The Oregon law is well thought out and crafted to begin with, and has been sustained now twice by a majority the state's voters. Oregonians requesting assisted suicide must be certi­fied as having less than 6 months to live by their doctor, be likewise deemed mentally fit and not making the request from depression. This must also be confirmed by a second physician. Once this has been deter­mined, the patient must make the request for a lethal prescription again after a 15-day waiting period. This done, the patient is by law required to take the medication in the presence of one other adult and must administer (i.e., swallow) the lethal dose of painkillers voluntarily – if, the patient still desires to take their own life. Since Oregon's law took effect, only 96 people have requested and been prescribed these lethal dosages. Of these, only 70 have used them to take their lives. There has been no frantic rush, as opponents frequently allege, to employ this compassionate option. In the first year of its enactment (1998) a total of 16 people chose assisted suicide. In 1999 and in 2000 there were each year 27 people who were able to, and employed, this option. In that same time period, 6,981 Oregonians died of similar diseases. This is hardly a hysterical or nefarious intrigue to do away with vulnerable, suffering, or unwanted people.

Likewise, contrary to opponents' well-broadcast fears, those Oregonians who legally took the step of assisted suicide were overwhelmingly white, well-educated, and married. Again not all those who asked for and received those fatal doses, in the end decided to take them.

Opponents also cite alleged instances of "botched suicides" where patients died in agony as a result of mishaps in the administered medication. Those who have died using Oregon's law usually passed within minutes or a few hours after taking their dosage. The longest reported time until death was 26 hours. One individual according to his doctor in attendance, "belched" or "regurgitated" about 2 teaspoons of the lethal mixture, but still slipped into a coma and was dead within 7 minutes. It would be difficult to portray this documented record as some out of control merciless mess. Death without compassionate treatment, and particularly in the case of cancer, is an out of control, merciless, mess.

Many take a religious stance on this issue, that it is morally wrong to end life that only God can give. I would not quarrel that God is the source of all life. On this issue as with many others however, I find it difficult to credit anyone else's ability to read the Creator's mind with any more dimness or clarity than I myself possess. I would even argue that those who fight so passionately against assisted suicide may even have some unexamined issues of their own around faith and dying. I firmly believe in an afterlife and a compassionate, merciful, and accepting God. I wonder, are those so willing to control the choices of others in such dire personal matters acting out, to some degree, their own insecurities and unanswered questions about God? I also do not believe such a powerful and compassionate Creator would want those created beings to needlessly suffer. Why otherwise would this Being have pro­vided our brains with endorphins to ease pain and suffering in our bodies' emergencies?

Finally, let's drop down from intellectual discussion to the reality of dying and death. How many of those so adamantly opposed to assisted suicide have sat with a loved one and watched them die, inch by agonizing inch? My sister at the end took five days to die of her cancer. She was in favor of assisted suicide, but as her death came a few months before Oregonians first passed that landmark measure, all she and her loving family and health providers could do was try and ease her suffering. There is no way I can describe in these few words the agony of watching a sister die, with suffering and the indignities of failing body function, while knowing a more compassionate option was possible.  Until you have witnessed this, nay-sayer, please do not think you know what you would do, or what is right, or what God desires from us.  Control and fear and idealogy at all cost – no.  Death with dignity and compassion, yes.