Assisted suicide approved by Washington, D.C. city council [CNA]


#1

Washington D.C., Nov 2, 2016 / 04:19 pm (CNA/EWTN News).- Representatives of the nation’s capital voted Tuesday to approve physician-assisted suicide, despite strong opposition from religious, legal and medical leaders.

“Since the time of the Hippocratic oath – which long predated Christianity – the medical community saw the profound incompatibility of efforts to end life being facilitated by a healing profession,” said Dr. Lucia Silecchia, a law professor at The Catholic University of America and a Washington, D.C. resident.

“Thus, while the Catholic and Christian understanding of the dignity of human persons, made in the image and likeness of God undergirds the moral critique of such statutes, the medical opposition long predates Christ, and the legal objections should compel anyone who observes how easily disregard for the life of one spreads,” she continued.

Silecchia had talked to CNA on Oct. 17, when the assisted suicide bill was originally being considered.

The D.C. city council voted 11-2 to pass the “Death With Dignity” bill, which would allow two doctors, who both determine that a patient will die within sixth months, to prescribe a fatal dose of medication for the patient if requested.

The bill is expected to become law. Although Mayor Muriel Bowser has not publicly confirmed she would sign it and the city council still has to hold a final vote later this month, the bill for now has a veto-proof majority.

If it goes through, Washington. D.C. will join a handful of other states in allowing for physician-assisted suicide. Legislatures in Oregon, Washington, California, and Vermont have legalized the practice, as has the Montana Supreme Court.

Legislation to permit assisted suicide is currently being considered in New Jersey, and Colorado voters will consider a ballot measure to legalize the practice on Nov. 8.

The D.C. bill was advertised as expanding the end-of-life options for terminally-ill patients, but opponents insisted that it could become a poison pill where the poor and disabled would be pressured to end their lives rather than burden others with high medical costs.

Cardinal Donald Wuerl of Washington has spoken out repeatedly against the bill as a false sense of mercy.

“A truly compassionate and merciful response to the sick and vulnerable is not to confirm these impulses by offering them a lethal drug,” he insisted in an Oct. 5 statement.

“Whether it is a terminally ill person or a young person suffering from depression, our response should be to draw them away from the edge, to help the vulnerable among us – regardless of their condition or circumstances – with genuine compassion and give them hope.”

In addition to the immorality of suicide, the bill poses other serious ethical concerns for its opponents.

Not all terminal diagnoses are correct, as patients can outlive their life expectancy by years. Thus, some patients who would otherwise long outlive their diagnosis might instead opt for an early death.

However, under the legislative measure, doctors could write a lethal prescription for a patient they barely know but deem to be terminally-ill, and if a patient’s long-time physician refuses to write them a prescription, the patient could simply look around for a doctor who will.

Also, one of the witnesses to the patient’s decision to end their life could be an interested party, which means they could benefit financially from the patient’s death.

States that have legalized assisted suicide have run into problems, such as one case in California where a terminally ill woman was told that her doctor-recommended chemotherapy treatment would not be covered by insurance, but pills for suicide would be covered.

Also of concern is evidence that many patients suffer from anxiety or depression when they receive a terminal diagnosis, and their desire to end their lives disappears when they are treated for these conditions.

Full article…


#2

How very depressing.


#3

Considering what they keep finding in the Constitution…(abortion, marriage between almost anyone)

The culture of death will not end until Jesus comes back. :frowning:


#4

Assisted killing approved… again. Having been suicidal myself on more than one occasion, I can say I’ve been there. Treatments have improved over the years that are more symptom specific and with fewer side effects.

I worked in a major hospital and saw many patients, especially cancer patients, go through a lot. I also saw patients with other conditions but killing them is not part of health care. It is legalized murder. Pain management is improving and patients are sometimes reluctant to ask for further help for a number of reasons. I hope this self-destructs soon as new pain management methods are being developed.

Ed


#5

Boo! :frowning:

And I have contemplated suicide several times throughout my life due to mental illness and chronic pain. Meaning I can see the whole false “mercy” aspect (I truly know where many of those patients are coming from) and still choose against it.


#6

Death with “dignity”. I think not. Call it what it is: suicide.


#7

I’m not sure if many people out there are thinking and understanding what all this means for the future of civilization…

Sure, it sounds like its very compassionate… but do people realize that EVERY SINGLE PERSON on this earth would choose assisted suicide when it comes to their time of death to end their suffering? If anyone has ever been in severe pain for long periods of time, or even has witnessed a loved one dying painfully, the temptation to have the option to end it via assisted suicide would almost be too much to resist. This would mean, in the future if this is allowed and sanctified, that everyone facing death through illness (or maybe just long term illness) would most likely be choosing the day and time of their death. The only people who would die ‘naturally’ would be those who die in car accidents and other sudden deaths like it.

Will it become expected that those with illness terminate themselves? Would they be thought of as selfish to not do so?

This is really unprecedented.


#8

I’m not sure if many people out there are thinking and understanding what all this means for the future of civilization…

Sure, it sounds like its very compassionate… but do people realize that EVERY SINGLE PERSON on this earth would choose assisted suicide when it comes to their time of death to end their suffering? If anyone has ever been in severe pain for long periods of time, or even has witnessed a loved one dying painfully, the temptation to have the option to end it via assisted suicide would almost be too much to resist. This would mean, in the future if this is allowed and sanctified, that everyone facing death through illness (or maybe just long term illness) would most likely be choosing the day and time of their death. The only people who would die ‘naturally’ would be those who die in car accidents and other sudden deaths like it.

Will it become expected that those with illness terminate themselves? Would they be thought of as selfish to not do so?

This is really unprecedented.


#9

Assisted suicide goes hand in hand with pushed off a cliff…

We saw this so publicly with Terri Schiavo. lifeandhope.com

Privacy laws and power of attorney prevent all family members from seeing medical records and ‘choices’ from/for loved ones. Imagine being blacked out by a parent or sibling because you aren’t on the legal list? Brother/sister decides to advise suffering parent to pull the plug and there is nothing you can do. Your hands are legally bound.
You live with the shame of relatives and friends asking how your loved one is doing and you must admit you know very little and can say nothing about their care or choices.

Families divided


#10

Yes and no

We’ve had signs of this evil coming down the tube.
The privacy law was an important part of this…a black cloak.


#11

This is just a new attempt to promote something old. It is not unprecedented. It is happening elsewhere right now.

And every single person on earth choosing this to end their suffering? Not true. Simply not true.

The use of the word selfish is not logical based on the premise stated above. Only the patient gets to decide, but coercion is conceivable, misleading people and being uninformed or misinformed about alternatives are possible. People have suffered and died in circumstances that advocates would describe as “undignified” deaths.

The real problem here is forcing healers to kill their patients. And getting people to accept it and regard it as normative.

Ed


#12

The sad thing is that even though this is only happening in the more liberal states right now, eventually it will likely be forced on all of the states by the courts. It will be similar to gay marriage in a lot of ways. A portion of states will legalize it (several already have), a portion will resist, someone will sue, then the case will make its way through the system, and then the Supreme Court will interpret some amendment or other portion of the Constitution to say that it guarantees the right to assisted suicide. We can only pray that this does not come to pass, but I don’t have my hopes up right now.


#13

I agree, I think if Trump gets elected, he can then appoint pro-life judges and this can be stopped, but I think if Clinton gets in, this will be inevitable and will most likely go down exactly how you have predicted.

God Bless You

Josh


#14

The healthcare crisis and progressively growing elderly population will expedite passage. The voting power of the elderly will be reinforced by younger generations looking for easy ways out of suffering. All things considered…and there is plenty to consider…the populace will probably effortlessly vote it in.


closed #15

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.