This guest post is courtesy of Mildred Culbreath, Regent Law 3L:
In my Bioethics class this semester, we were assigned to consider the proposed Oregon Death with Dignity Statute. I can assure you that when I saw this assignment, I felt dread. It didn't help that the assignment was due in the month that housed the anniversary of my father's death, and I was already battling all the emotions surrounding that event. I persevered and attacked the post with vigor and passion, maybe letting some of the feelings from my personal life bleed through when I clicked the submit button. I was relieved to have gotten through it, only to have my professor send me a note saying, "Maybe you should consider expanding this into a blog post." My immediate response in my head was, "How about no on that?" I told her in polite terms a few days later that I was a little too sensitive to the topic, but here we are.
Not to trauma dump or anything like that, but I fear that I may owe a little explanation. My father was initially diagnosed with Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS) when I was a senior in college. His diagnosis was confirmed by a second neurologist the summer I graduated, and a few months later, I found myself being the primary caregiver of both my father and my mother, who had suffered a traumatic brain injury due to a car accident when I was 14 years old. My mother was still able to assist in some capacity with my father. It became evident early on that my father, who was rapidly growing weaker, who was 6'3 and solid, needed more help than my mother or I could do alone (we did receive help from other family members and paid caregivers) not to mention the fact that my father, an intelligent, strong-willed, and proud individual, was facing a terminal diagnosis and fading fast. He was taking Riluzole, a drug that extends an individual's life by two to three months, but his prognosis was poor, and he had a bout with pneumonia and a bowel obstruction. After another episode of respiratory failure landed him in the hospital, he was given the option to undergo a tracheostomy and have a feeding tube inserted. My father wrestled with the decision but finally concluded he didn't want either. He was sent home on hospice care, and less than two months later, he was gone. I wrestled with the decision he made; one could say I was even angry, but at the end of the day, he made it.
As I stated earlier, the assignment called for us to assume that we were an attorney in Oregon, where the “Death with Dignity Act” was in force. We were tasked with determining whether we would accept and assist an elderly client who was suffering from a terminal disease with a prognosis of three to four months to live and thinks that he might want to take a lethal dose of medication that would allow him to “die with dignity.” We needed to explain why we would or would not accept the client, and, if we did, how we would explain it to our pastor.
You may be wondering if I decided to represent the hypothetical client, and the answer is a resounding yes. As an attorney, it is my duty to offer ethical, unbiased legal advice to my clients. As a Christian attorney, my duty is, as always, to spread love and the good news of our lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. To serve as a steward of His Kingdom. Relatively simple.
Not really.
Let's start with Oregon's Death with Dignity Act.
Superficially, the act appears to advocate for an individual's right to end their life with dignity and with just cause. Sounds great, but I took a specific issue with some of the language of this statute, specifically with 127.825 § 3.03, which speaks of the patient's potentially being psychologically cleared from depression or any other psychological or psychiatric disorder. The question I pose is this: how can a medical professional clear someone as thinking objectively of their impending death? I further propose that the knowledge of impending death can be catastrophic to someone's mental health. Once someone is confronted with the knowledge that they are actively dying, their mental health is forever and irrevocably changed.
The Concept of Dying with Dignity
Having witnessed the death of my parents and the death of my grandmother, I can understand why some may view a death with dignity as a palatable alternative to a drawn-out and painful death. It may offer a way out, allowing someone to exit on their own terms with most of their faculties intact. To allow them the dignity of choosing not to suffer, and for others to witness their suffering. Perhaps to avoid being a burden. Honestly, I do not know if we have the right to end this life earlier.
Are we even capable of ending our lives early?
Are we as humans capable of ending our lives early? As believers, it is not our decision to make, regardless of our perception of autonomy over our own lives. I would encourage all individuals to look to scripture, such as 2 Corinthians 2:12, which states that God's sovereign power is made perfect in our weakness. Ecclesiastes 8: 7-8 emphasizes that no one can control the future or the time of their death.
Life is precious. I've watched my father fight and force his diseased, weakened muscles to push air into his lungs. I've watched my mother fight for her life as blood poured from a
gaping wound in her head. I watched so many family members fight and claw themselves back from the brink of death, often in agonizing pain, because they had a will to live. Because in many instances, they had faith in something greater than themselves.
It is that faith. A faith that there is something greater than us all that would empower me wholeheartedly to say yes to a client who wants to seek aid from the Death with Dignity Act. That faith would empower me to counsel them to the best of my ability with all the compassion and empathy that I can muster for the situation. One of my classmates astutely observed that, per the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 1.2(a), lawyers must abide by their clients' objectives, even when they disagree with those objectives morally. Model Rule 2.1 states that lawyers may discuss moral, ethical, and religious considerations but must not impose their personal beliefs. I believe it is possible to be an unbiased and neutral advocate while still serving as a steward of God's kingdom. Because with all things that we do on this earth for the kingdom, we should do it out of love, 1 Corinthians 16:14.
Sources
Model Rules r. 1.2(a). Model Rules r. 2.1.
Or. Rev. Stat. §§ 127.800–127.897 (2024)
No comments:
Post a Comment