Let us begin by first clarifying the focus of the
existing national law: It is
PHYSICIAN ASSISTED SUICIDE – NOT “Nurses, and Doctors . . . permitted to kill their patients.” The actor in Physician Assisted suicide is the terminally ill patient with the Physician as facilitator of the patient’s wishes.
Regarding your New York Post article, there are anecdotal reports on BOTH SIDES of the issue given the complexities of the issue. Consider, for example, these articles – including one chronicling the views of a physician who has faced his own bout with cancer and knows it will return.
https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2015/03/from-doctor-to-patient-to-assisted-suicide-advocate/389108/http://www.cbsnews.com/news/60-minutes-aid-in-dying-lapook/http://www.cnn.com/2014/10/07/opinion/maynard-assisted-suicide-cancer-dignity/ Regarding your 2011 Current Oncology article, it entirely supports our current law – thank you for including it.
1) As the article points out about the international context,
there have been oversight issues which is why our national law has meticulously addressed oversight mechanisms for PAS.
2) The article also points out the
importance of palliative care – also an important addition and perhaps a better focus of your proposed bill.
3) Unfortunately,
the article incorrectly calculates and you misstate the statistics. First, the article refers to 17% of the 32% - which means 5%. Second, the article has selected “the Flemish part of Belgium” which is 3 times higher than the Netherlands, meaning it is not a typical situation. And third, the article states that it is consistent with previous research in which “25 of 1644 non-sudden deaths had been the result of euthanasia without explicit consent” in Belgium –
BUT THIS IS ONLY 1.5%. Given that the earlier article had a much larger sample, it is reasonable to assume that it is more accurate.
4) You will note that since that article,
4 US jurisdictions have researched the issue and chosen to pass a PAS bill (VT-2013, CA-2015, DC-2016, CO-2016) with voter support.
5) In jurisdictions without PAS,
patients are undertaking “Voluntary Refusal of Food and Fluids” (VRFF) as a means of ending their life, but as one article points out: “Patients may suffer because of the slow dying process following dehydration and starvation.”
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22038559 So let us proceed with actions that support individuals and their rights over their lives and deaths. As a person faces death from a terminal illness, it should be up to them in concert with their family and physician, to determine how to die. If you want to revise your bill to focus on palliative care, I would welcome such a revised bill that respects individual choice rather than government interference.
"Time and tide wait for no man".
You stated you wanted 24 hours to compose a reply on Sunday and I gave you 48 hours, and didn't start the vote on the bill until Tuesday. That you didn't consider it a sufficient priority on Monday or Tuesday is not my problem, but yours. Clearly the legislation just isn't that important to you.
Perhaps you should make better use of your time.
All I ask for is notification that you plan to proceed with the bill. I consider every bill high priority, I just sometimes lack the time to adequately put towards real researched analysis. I would love if you would PM me, asking me about my status on debate - considering we are the only two who are debating in this chamber, haha.
Anyways, I understand the frustration of not having people finish debate and wanting to get things done. I just ask that for an issue as sensitive as this, and one in which so many have spent a lot of effort into, we try to hear all sides, and make sure we are all Alerted.
If the Final Vote is to go on, I vote a
Nay for the reasons and flaws with not only the bill but the arguments presented for it.
