THIS IS AN ARCHIVE OF LAKE TAHOE NEWS, WHICH WAS OPERATIONAL FROM 2009-2018. IT IS FREELY AVAILABLE FOR RESEARCH. THE WEBSITE IS NO LONGER UPDATED WITH NEW ARTICLES.

Opinion: End of life debate needs more discussion


image_pdfimage_print

By Joe Mathews

Seventy-four years ago in Long Beach, a bride stood at the back of the Second Presbyterian Church, preparing to walk down the aisle. Her father eyed the groom warily and whispered in her ear: “It’s not too late to change your mind, dear.”

Today, that bride greets me from her bed in a board-and-care home in San Mateo. “Did you know I’m 100 years old?” she asks.

Joe Mathews

Joe Mathews

My grandmother is exaggerating. She’s 98. But I don’t correct her. I’ve inherited her conviction that facts shouldn’t get in the way of a good line. She’s also taught me that you can’t ever be too sure about life, especially its end.

Grandma Oops, as we call her (she’s a major league klutz), is in my thoughts these days, as SB128, the End of Life Option bill, makes its way through the California Legislature. The legislation would allow mentally competent California residents with six months or less to live to obtain a prescription for lethal drugs they can give themselves.

I have no beef with the legislation, and my grandmother is strongly for it. Such legislation suits California, where the long-standing movement to give people more control over how they die dates at least to the 1963 publication of Oakland resident Jessica Mitford’s exposé of the funeral business, “The American Way of Death”.

What doesn’t fit California, or the reality of the end of our lives, is the strident tone of those on both sides of the debate.

The advocates for SB128 can be unnerving in their unswerving commitment to the right to die, and in their bullying of those of us who would dare to use the term “suicide” in this context. The opponents are just as rigid. Religious leaders call the suicide of a terminally ill person an affront to God. Doctors claim that physicians are healers and nothing more (despite the lack of empathy and excessive charging of helpless patients in that profession).

These claims, and all the attention to the bill, are too much, for two reasons. One is mathematical. Even if the bill is enacted, such assisted suicides are certain to be extremely rare. In Oregon, which pioneered this right, there have been less than 1,000 such suicides since 1998, representing well less than 1 percent of deaths in the state. The second reason is fuzzier, literally: To apply rigid moral claims to a sphere as uncertain as the end of life is foolish. And wrong.

It also misses the point. The most important right to protect at life’s end is not the right to die but rather the right to change your mind.

Changes of mind define a life — that’s what my grandmother taught me. She didn’t care for marriage or family, but married as a nod to the times — you couldn’t spend all your time with a man if you didn’t marry him. She changed her mind about kids when she saw how good her husband was with them. She was committed to the casual Southern California life in Long Beach but became a Northern Californian — a teacher in San Mateo — when my grandfather, a civilian Navy employee, got a job at Hunters Point in San Francisco.

Because her teaching job came with government benefits, she could choose her end-of-life care, she selected a board-and-care that a large Tongan family runs out of their home. Tracking the decline of Grandma Oops has been a challenge. She was prone to spills and mixing up names when she was young, so falls and forgetfulness weren’t reliable signs of problems.

On her 90th birthday, Grandma Oops was taken to the local hospital and told she needed dialysis or she would die. She refused, saying she’d used too many of the earth’s resources already. Eight years later, she’s still refusing treatment when she’s ill. But when I visit her, I bring along her three great-grandchildren, ages 6, 4, and 20 months. She hugs them and encourages them to run down the long hallway of the board-and-care. She says she’s changed her mind — she’s glad she lived along enough to know them.

One of the best things about SB128 is that it leaves room for people to change their minds. You have to make two oral requests for lethal drugs 15 days apart, and a written request with witnesses. And you have to administer the medication yourself. The real problem with the legislation is its narrow focus. California needs a much broader conversation about improving end of life care for all of us. Palliative care is very hard to find. And we Californians have decided not to make the investments in the care we’ll need as our senior population explodes in the next several years.

Of course, it’s not too late for us to change our minds.

Joe Mathews is California and innovation editor for Zócalo Public Square, for which he writes the Connecting California column.

 

image_pdfimage_print

About author

This article was written by admin

Comments

Comments (11)
  1. Dogula says - Posted: May 16, 2015

    I believe suicide is wrong.
    I believe people have the right to make that decision for themselves.
    I believe the government will abuse any provisions it makes toward that issue, eventually.

  2. Gus says - Posted: May 16, 2015

    A culture of death is gripping our society.

  3. Janice Eastburn says - Posted: May 16, 2015

    Thank you, Mr. Matthews, for this well-written article. This bill seems to be written with reason and compassion. While I certainly hope that neither I, nor my loved ones, ever have to make the decision to end the suffering of our final days, it is good to know that there will be a gentle alternative available. We do not make our beloved pets suffer when they are in the dying process. Humans should have the same option.

  4. Mama Bear says - Posted: May 16, 2015

    Brittany Maynard brought the question of medically assisted suicide to light recently with her choice to move to Oregon where it is legal. She suffered from a brain tumor and chose to end her life on her terms last November.
    Dr. Kevorkian had the right idea. Assisted suicide, after much medical background and psychological review, shows great compassion. The medical profession has become too good at sustaining life when quantity overtakes quality.
    Please check out the website compassionandchoices.org to see what others have to say.

  5. Dogula says - Posted: May 16, 2015

    Dr Kevorkian isn’t somebody I would reference if I were pro-suicide. He enjoyed his work entirely too much. There was something wrong with that man.

  6. Mama Bear says - Posted: May 16, 2015

    No, he was ahead of his time. He did not just dispense pills to anyone who requested them. He reviewed medical records and had psychological testing done to ensure that it was not just someone who was depressed.
    Keeping someone alive when they are in severe pain or face the possibility of slowly being eaten away by cancer when they prefer death is just plain cruel.
    I hope this bill passes in California where the concept of compassion ranks high among its residents.

  7. TeaTotal says - Posted: May 16, 2015

    I believe in the self rapture of all fundagelicals-why prolong the agony of the bad-bad-bad-gubmint- when you can live in foxnoose/700 Club/Rand heaven?

  8. Haddi T. Uptahere says - Posted: May 16, 2015

    The way the “System” works is this:
    You spend your youth studying things around you to see how they work. In our society wealth is the thing that seems to have the most value. “Mommy, can I have money for the ice cream truck”.
    When you then realize that wealth is the path to all the “things” you desire, you do the best you can to obtain it for you and your family. You sacrifice your time and hard work for it. Some sacrifice their morals and ideals. Then at last, you reach a point where things are good. By now though you are generally in your advanced years. The human body is a wonderful and amazing machine. Like all machines though, things wear out. Sometimes these things are not fixable.
    This is where the Health Care System steps in.
    They have an agenda too. Their goal is to obtain as much of the wealth you have created. Doctors, Lawyers, Health Care Corporations, Insurance Companies and finally, Funeral Corporations.
    They preach and preach that you need to plan out all aspects of YOUR LIFE!!!
    Why not an exit strategy on YOUR own terms?
    Easy, no money in it!

  9. rock4tahoe says - Posted: May 16, 2015

    Well Dog, you buttered both sides and the edges of your bread with that first post.

    Haddit. Average GDP per Capita in America is about $4,400 per month or $53,000 per year. So I am not sure that “wealth” has the “most value” in our society.

    In my opinion, “it” becomes a quality of life issue. If the quality of a persons life is measured by the amount of pain and suffering that can be endured, I certainly do not believe that is the solution. Only an individual, his/her family and doctors need to be involved.

  10. Haddi T. Uptahere says - Posted: May 16, 2015

    Rock,
    Wealth is a measure of the value of all things of worth that a person or entity has acquired.
    My point was the indoctrination at an early age that acquiring “things” seems to have the most value in our society. I stand by that. I am not saying that it is right or wrong. I am saying that no matter what, we all die and that there will be entities out there that will do their best to get whatever “wealth” you have.

  11. rock4tahoe says - Posted: May 21, 2015

    Had it. You left out Relatives will also do their best to get whatever wealth/stuff you have.