This guest post is from Mark Schultz, Regent Law 2L:
In the 1990’s, the State of Michigan was ground zero in a nationwide debate over physician assisted suicide. Dr. Jack Kevorkian was a Michigan physician who seemed to have a lifetime infatuation with death. He assisted in the deaths of 130 people between 1990 and 199.[1]
The
legal landscape at the time was uncertain. Michigan enacted a temporary ban on
assisted suicide,[2] mostly to
buy time for legislators to mull things over before crafting more permanent
legislation.
Kevorkian
challenged the temporary ban on assisted suicide and lost at the Michigan Supreme
Court,[3]
but the law soon expired. Kevorkian escalated his practice of sending elderly
patients to their deaths and promoting assisted suicide. Kevorkian and his
attorney, Geoffrey Fieger, who used his newfound defense lawyer publicity to
run for Michigan Governor, pushed for legal physician assisted suicide across
the country.
Kevorkian’s
assisted suicide advocacy efforts had opposite effect he intended. His position
proved to be far outside the Overton Window of Michiganders. In 1998, Michigan
enacted a ban on physician assisted suicide.[4]
Dr. Kevorkian didn’t care; he continued to kill old people and was soon
convicted of second-degree murder under that statute.[5]
Two and a half decades later, the debate over physician assisted suicide continues,
even when it lacks high-profile doctors and patients to bring it to light.
Debates
about assisted suicide tend to focus on theoretical concepts like the sanctity
of life, personal liberty, care for the elderly, and informed consent. Both
sides often fail to see real-world pitfalls of physician assisted suicide.
Older
people who are nearing death think about things in a different light. They want
to be on good terms with God and with as many people as possible. While this is
a great intention, it can leave them vulnerable. One fear of the elderly is
being a burden. They care so much for others as they prepare to leave this
world that they don’t want to inconvenience others on their way out. This is
when a theoretical right to die public policy measure becomes a duty to die in many
people’s minds.
Many
people today in nursing homes have very early childhood memories of the Great
Depression. They worked and saved their entire lives so their kids wouldn’t
have to wait in breadlines or hope a world war lifts them out of poverty. Their
concern for others combined with financial costs associated with keeping them
alive can coerce them to choose death when physician assisted suicide is a
legal option.
Many
people require specialized care for many years at the end of their lives. Their
specific medical situation may prevent them from living with a son or daughter,
even if both parties strongly desire it. While assisted living is very
expensive, living in a skilled care facility magnifies that expense many times
over. A Roth IRA or employer retirement account that took discipline and decades
to build can quickly disappear when used to pay for a nursing home. Many people
protect assets in a trust as part of a good estate plan and attempt to qualify
for entitlements such as Medicaid, but many estate assets may still be subject
to recovery by the government. Questions can begin to linger in people’s minds:
“Is it worth it for me to spend all my money to live like this for just a few
more years? I really want my kids and grandkids to have my mutual fund
portfolio. Everyone says it’s ok and legal now to have my doctor help me die a
little faster. Maybe I should just do that.” Beneficiaries can think things
like “Would I rather visit Grandpa in the nursing home for the next 3 years, or
would I rather be thankful for the good times we had together and instead have a
share of his stock account that is quickly depleting?” Public policy in
American must not reach the point of making physician assisted death look more
appealing and valuable than human life.
Suicide
is a crisis in the West, despite our status as the most prosperous and free
people in all human history. We cannot simultaneously prevent suicide and promote
suicide in different contexts to different people just because of various
pitfalls of the human condition.
[1]Law Library - American Law and
Legal Information, https://law.jrank.org/pages/7987/Kevorkian-Jack.html
[2] MICH. COMP. LAWS § 752.1027 (1992).
[3] People v. Kevorkian, 527
N.W.2d 714 (Mich. 1994).
[4] MICH. COMP. LAWS § 750.329a
(1998).
[5] People v. Kevorkian, 639 N.W.2d 291 (Mich. Ct. App. 1994).
No comments:
Post a Comment