Peter
Goodwin, a family physician and leading advocate of assisted suicide in Oregon,
recently committed suicide. Goodwin had been instrumental in Oregon’s fight to
legalize assisted suicide. He had a terminal illness, a prognosis of a rapidly
diminishing quality of life during his projected six remaining months, and chose
to die with dignity. (Stephen Miller, “Right-to-Die Advocate Ends His Life,” Wall
Street Journal, March 13, 2012, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303717304577279740029880430.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_editorsPicks_2)
What
would you choose if you, God forbid, find yourself in a similar situation?
Goodwin’s act was not rash or ill considered. No hope of an effective treatment
existed; each day brought further deterioration to his condition and quality of
life. Human actions prolong life in immoral ways, e.g., wrongly spending
enormous sums to extend a comatose person’s “survival” for a day or a week.
Simplistically
saying that only God determines when a person dies clearly does not mesh with
contemporary reality. Similarly, humans can now create life, e.g., through in
vitro fertilization.
I support organ donation. I’ve
prepared the necessary legal documents to authorize donation of my organs upon
my death. The gift of organs can be a gift of life to another person. Goodwin’s
choice of death and organ donation represents a net gain of life and healing.
However, I recently read a
column by Dick Teresi, “What
You Lose When You Sign That Donor Card” (Wall Street Journal, March
13, 2012) that raised some concerns. First, society would benefit from having a
clear definition of death, a task easier said than done. Teresi’s column unhelpfully
muddies the debate by vaguely referring to brain waves emanating from comatose individuals.
He does not specify the type of brain waves; he ignores cases like that of
Karen Quinlan, whom doctors declared brain dead in spite of some continuing
brain activity, who was kept “alive” for years, and whose autopsy, when she was
finally declared physically dead, showed significant, long-term brain
deterioration.
Second, people should consult
with knowledgeable medical experts when facing choices about prospects for
reversing terminal diseases, selecting treatment protocols, opting to refuse
treatment, exploring the advisability of assisted suicide, and deciding whether
a person is brain dead. People should not depend upon religious leaders for
answers to these questions. The ethical issue is living abundantly and
promoting flourishing, a goal that is not always inimical with accepting death.
Choosing to die with dignity may be the best way to end one’s life abundantly
and with maximal flourishing.
No comments:
Post a Comment