On Monday, here in Philadelphia, Kentucky Derby winner Barbaro was euthanized after an eight-month battle with complications from a leg injury he had suffered at the Preakness.
Philadelphia mourns. And apparently the world mourns, too, as the news of this beloved horse's death has reached newspapers and TV sets around the nation and beyond.
With his Kentucky Derby win, Barbaro became no less a Philly sports hero than Eagle Donovan McNabb. But there's one big difference: If a football player (or your uncle Joe) were to suffer a terminal injury that left him dying a slow death in constant excruciating pain that even modern medicine could not control, he would just have to suffer.
As of this writing, Oregon is the only state in the U.S. that allows physician-assisted suicide for terminally ill patients in pain who want to die with dignity on their own terms. Efforts to pass similar legislation in other states have failed, due in no small part to challenges by those who confuse a "culture of life" with a culture of forced suffering.
In reality, despite concerns by opponents of the Oregon law who feared that it would lead to a widespread rush to die, only 246 terminally ill patients used the law to end their lives from the time the law was implemented in 1998 through the end of 2005. That's an average of about one in 1,000 deaths in that state during that timeframe. These patients found a quick, painless, and certain end to their intolerable suffering, and were spared weeks or months of agony. And their families were spared the anguish of watching their loved ones suffer a painful and prolonged death.
In addition to Oregon, physician-assisted suicide is currently legal in the Netherlands, Belgium, and Switzerland. Everywhere else, the terminally ill are forced to endure sometimes horrific pain at the end of life, or end their misery with a plastic bag, a noose, or some other undignified means. And those sad, desperate acts will continue as long as so-called "pro-life" factions keep fighting attempts to widen the acceptance of physician-assisted suicide and provide more people with the power to choose a comfortable death over a horrible, lingering, painful one.
What it boils down to is this: While life is precious and should not be thrown away lightly, modern medical science cannot yet provide adequate pain control in all dying patients, even in the best hospices.
While physicians do take an oath to "do no harm", is it not harmful to force a dying patient to suffer a slow, lingering death against his or her will, perhaps kept alive artificially with respirators and feeding tubes?
When a pet (or a racehorse) becomes ill to the point where it is near death or suffering uncontrollably, a veterinarian will not think twice before recommending that the animal be euthanized, to put it out of its misery. In our society, this is regarded as the kind thing to do.
So why do we treat our dying animals with more mercy than we give our dying people?
-----
http://www.maryshawonline.com
Mary Shaw is a Philadelphia-based writer and activist, with a focus on politics, human rights, and social justice. She is a former Philadelphia Area Coordinator for the Nobel-Prize-winning human rights group Amnesty International, and her views appear regularly in a variety of newspapers, magazines, and websites. Note that the ideas expressed here are the author's own, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of Amnesty International or any other organization with which she may be associated.
Mary, thank you for your clear-headed and compassionate piece. It is simply amazing to me that individuals suffering horrendous and painful terminal illness cannot decide for themselves when it is time to go. That we presume to know, in our self-righteous ignorance, what is best for someone in that condition, enduring unimaginable pain and suffering, is perhaps one of the most cruel and indecent of human acts.
As you stated, even for those living with incalculable pain and disease, and if given the opportunity to legally end their lives, may choose not to do so. The will to live is a remarkable thing - I watched many friends dying of cancer and AIDS who continued to fight even when wracked with pain and a continual wasting away.
When my husband was diagnosed with ALS, one of the first things he chose to do following the barrage of information as to the horrors of this progressive and terminal disease, was to find out what his options may be, if and when he chose to end his life. As we all know, it is a precarious tightrope walk - and sadly, the gut-wrenching decisions on how and when, and what role a spouse or partner may play. What a heartbreaking decision to have to contemplate, let alone make - knowing full well the implications and illegalities. There are few options, and those may be gruesome and/or fail.
As my husband's nightmare and battle with ALS progressed -- choking, inability to feed or dress himself, confined to a wheelchair, and weak from excrutiating pain -- and he was close to making that decision, full quadriplegia took hold, robbing him of the last small and feeble movement of his left hand. At one point, he had thought he might be able to feed himself pills, if and when he chose that route, but seemingly overnight, that option, with all others, disappeared.
After years of suffering, his only option, his final choice and say in life, was to stop eating - to starve himself to death. Oddly enough, while this seemed a rather painless and peaceful way for him to go, my struggle was in feeding and caring for myself, a room away, while he starved across the narrow threshold leading to our bedroom. It took 14 days for him to be at peace, finally. I would have given anything to see him not have to struggle, and for so long.
Thank you for your compassion and understanding. As I continue to say, for most people, not until you've walked in these shoes, similar shoes, can you begin to understand the horrors, heartbreak, and emotional and physical manifestations and toll of living with terminal illness.
It is not the governments decision on how and when a suffering human being should die. Ever. If we cannot make that final decision for ourselves, one so private that not even our closest loved one can fully understand, as it is not ours to know, then we are not, nor have ever been in control or ownership of our bodies and lives.
by
Jan Baumgartner (52 articles, 137 quicklinks, 10 diaries, 252 comments)
on Tuesday, January 30, 2007 at 2:16:41 PM
1 comments
How would you rate this?
You must be logged in (if signed up) to do ratings.
It's free to signup! And easy. And takes just a minute or two....
Must Read (
Well Said (
News (
Touching (
Funny (
Supported (
Interesting (
Inspiring (
Valuable (
