Robert G. Bannon, Vero Beach
Letter: It is only humane to allow terminally ill to have their suffering ended
I agree with Marshall Frank (Feb. 21 guest column), who suggests that Florida enact a law permitting physician-assisted deaths for terminally ill patients.
Such a law could relieve the long-term needless suffering of dying patients and, just as importantly, the terrible anguish of loved ones. Oregon and Washington already provide such legislative relief, while at least six other states are seriously considering similar legislation.
Many will oppose this for religious and other reasons. I respect their views. However, when a pet is riddled with cancer or so ill that it cannot function without pain and suffering, we “humanely” end its life. That, almost everyone recognizes, is an act of kindness. Why can’t we afford human beings the same kindness and respect?
Just assume that your loved one has been determined by at least two physicians to be terminally ill. Further assume that he or she is severely ill and in obvious agony. He or she is on life support and will linger in this condition for another several months before passing away, despite the fact that he or she is begging to die. Unfortunately, this is not an uncommon situation.
Physician-assisted death statutes are humane with all necessary safeguards. They allow terminally ill patients to end their own lives in a pain-free and dignified manner only after a) they request it and b) at least two physicians determine that the patient is terminally ill and will die within six months.
I hope that our legislators will have enough courage to propose and enact a humane death- with-dignity law.
Oklahoma tornado leaves massive damage
Kaitlyn Hunt Protest
Mile-wide tornado rips through…
Scripps Interactive Newspapers Group
Comments » 49
LDouglas writes:
Great letter Mr. Bannon- thank you.
chooselife writes:
Dear Robert,
Please dig deeper. Like communism, it sounds great in theory but is aweful in reality. Look to the Netherlands who's policy is out of control. (see below)
The experience of the Dutch people makes it clear that legalization of assisted suicide and euthanasia is not the answer to the problems of people who are terminally ill. The Netherlands has moved from assisted suicide to euthanasia, from euthanasia for people who are terminally ill to euthanasia for those who are chronically ill, from euthanasia for physical illneses to euthanasai for psychological distress, and from voluntary euthanasia to involuntary euthanasia (called "termination of the patient without explicit request"). The Dutch government's own commissioned research has documented that in more than one thousand cases a year, doctors actively cause or hasten death without the patient's request." p. 23
dsberkoff writes:
I agree Robert.
unconditionalone writes:
It's all about Doctors and hospitals extracting every penny out of your insurance and personal fortune,
Once you are no longer able to pay they send you home or to hospice care.
A good friend recently took her own life due to constant suffering, she showed me her medical bills prior to her departure, it's shameful to see that both hospitals and her doctor's nickel and dime her for what they claimed insurance companies failed to pay.
Now it's all about the money, if you are ill you need to make an appointment with the average Doctor, or choose to go to the emergency room where the real vultures are.
Her last visit to the Emergency room cost over $7000.00 and all they did was check her vitals.
hb63469#237398 writes:
Anytime the GUBERNMENT gets involved they screw it up. Healthcare cost is sky high because the GUBERNMENT mandates free healthcare for all dead beats. The emergency room cost is driven by the ten free loaders to the one paying patient. Of course the free loader doesn't select the least costly services, such as an office visit, since he pays ZERO, he picks the most expensive, the emergency room.
The same is probably true with end of life care. As long we have control, not the GUBERNMENT, we should be given the choice or free will.
rp_mcmurphy writes:
I too agree Robert.
1loosecannon writes:
Who determines what is "needless suffering"?
And sorry, my mother is not the same as the family cat who doesn't have self awareness. To compare human life to that of an animal is to diminish the true value of any human life.
BTW, your pet cat or dog, after giving birth to their litter, will in often cases eat their own young; usually the runt of the litter. Do you recommend that too? Humanely, of course.
1loosecannon writes:
"should be our right to go out the way we want to"
That I will agree; but it won't be you making the decision and it won't be your family either. The Obama Administration is finally coming clean on the death panels and the 'exchanges'.
History repeats itself and now that evil of history is making its way to the USA.
BruceEdwards3 writes:
And '1loosecannon' plays the Obama card. The only surprise is it took him until 9:11am.
1loosecannon writes:
For those of us who actually READ THE BILL, it is NO SURPRISE.
Obama is just doing and promoting the identical same things as did all the other murderous dictators before him......and the foolish like your self, who do not know history, blindly follow along to your own demise taking us and the country with it.
Opus writes:
Get an education. Is your healthcare more expensive? Most aren't.
THe idea of Obama care is to stop those that can't pay going to the er when they could now afford to go to a doctor.
Get it??
SpeakSoftlyBut writes:
The sticky bit is WHO makes the decision? It sure sounds harmless until you are the one others you don't know are making life ending decisions about you. But then again what possibly could go wrong with this grand idea huh?
Mockingbird writes:
Very thoughtful letter. Seems like this could be the logical extension of a DNR (do not resuscitate) order which is currently in use.
1loosecannon writes:
THE GEORGIA GUIDESTONE
aka Ten Commandments of the Anti-Christ
1. Maintain humanity under 500,000,000 in perpetual balance with nature.
2. Guide reproductive wisely - improving fitness and diversity.
3. Unite humanity with a living new language.
4. Rule passion - faith - tradition - and all things with tempered reason.
5. Protect people and nations with fair laws and just courts.
6. Let all nations rule internally resolving external disputes in a world court.
7. Avoid petty laws and useless officials.
8. Balance personal rights with social duties.
9. Prize truth - beauty - love - seeking harmony with the infinite.
10. Be not a cancer on the earth.
Leave room for nature.
Leave room for nature.
After reading these, doesn't everything the progressives/communists/liberals/agnostics do make sense now?
Mockingbird writes:
What does this have to do with the letter?
snoozy writes:
I would think the Netherlands is a very civilized society which is not going to do half of what you are saying. Yes they do have assisted suicide but it is done at the patients wishes only or if the brain is totally gone as in advanced Alzheimer disease extraordinary life support efforts are with held.
But what really makes me wonder about your position is that you believe you should be able to require a person to live out their lives according to the perception of your religion, The Bible tells you how to live your life and how to influence others through example, it doesn't say anything about assisted suicide as this is not killing, it is almost always the humanitarian relief of terminal disease and its accompanying pain. Ever heard of hospice????
1loosecannon writes:
READ #1 Bird brain!....then #2!
1loosecannon writes:
I would hope that hospice does not kill the patients in their care.
You, nor any doctor, no matter how good a doctor, is qualified enough to determine the proper time of death for anyone.
BruceEdwards3 writes:
The LTE referenced Oregon and Washington, not the Netherlands.
Mockingbird writes:
I can read it all day long, and it still won't pass muster. Just another off-topic rant totally in keeping with your alias!
Middleman writes:
Neither are you via your belief in "god".
tanwiser1#462667 writes:
Here is one of criteria to be admitted to a State Mental Hospital.
Involuntary admissions must be:
Mentally ill and because of this illness, either refuse voluntary placement at the facility or be unable to determine whether the placement is necessary; and
Likely to suffer from neglect or refuse to care for themselves; or
A danger to themselves or others as evidenced by recent behavior.
P.S. You qualify.
ITSMEAGAIN writes:
Robert G. Bannon, poses a good question that I have often pondered, as recently as February 19.
I heard about Oregon and Washington state policy on death with dignity and found it very compelling.
I will repeat my comment from Feb.19;
"I do not want to be a burden on family and society, but do not wish to die. A dilemma, to be sure. Can we choose to die in peace, like in the movies "Little Big Man" or "Soylent Green", or be forced to endure expensive treatments that line the pockets of the healthcare industry, and do little but delay the inevitable. I want my wife to recover fully and enjoy her life and family for as long as possible, but what about me. Can I not make a decision on my own passing, as Doctor Kevorkian assisted people with a dignified end of their terminal suffering, or to be left at the whims of modern medicine to raise the average life expectancy of U.S. citizens.
Can I not choose to sacrifice my life and treatments for the greater good. Would I choose this?
Eating a bullet or a handful of pills would likely accomplish this task, and we all know that is done by our seniors, but who about something more dignified, other than being left to the wolves.
I don't know, definitely a perplexing issue with an older population."
When my mother was in her late 70's she told me she was ready to die. I did not realize(as yet undiagnosed) she had micro-fractures throughout her back's vertebrae from osteoporosis, was in constant pain and could hardly get out of her chair. She was old and tired and happy with her life as she lived it.
My mother died last year at age 93. After falling and breaking her hip, then contracting SARS, she spent 10 years in nursing homes and ALF's receiving life extending treatments, but with no quality of life, she was basically just hanging on and did not even recognize me, her only son, for most of those last years. I did not wish for her to die, but at the end a doctor came in and talked to us about what treatments were left and our options. I must say he practically told us we should let her go, and I made the decision for comfort measures only(CMO). We watched her die.
We had a memorial service and all that stuff, but I wonder, what if I wanted to attend my own memorial service, to have my life remembered and celebrated while I was still alive, and then lay myself down to sleep, to let others live their lives without, I hate to say it, the burden of a sick old man weighing on their minds.
I don't know, yet I know my time draws nearer and I am still perplexed by these issues.
BruceEdwards3 writes:
(quote)
The Oregon Public Health Division released its statutorily-required annual report about the Oregon Death with Dignity Act and the terminally ill individuals who qualified under its provisions. The release reflects statistics from the 14th year of implementation, and encompasses data from January 7, 2011-February 29, 2012—roughly 13 months.
Consistent with information from prior years, the data show Death with Dignity is a rarely used option for a small number of terminally ill Oregonians. The report indicates the process was implemented, in every instance, under the strict guidelines written into Oregon law and the established medical standard of care that has evolved since implementation.
During the 13 months covered by the report, 114 qualified patients received a prescription under the provisions of the law. Approximately 62%, or 71 terminally ill individuals, died as a result of ingesting medication prescribed under the Oregon Death with Dignity Act. Sixty-two different physicians wrote prescriptions under the law. According to the Health Division's report, in the 14 year history of implementation, 935 prescriptions have been written and 596 individuals have ingested medication and died using the standards spelled out in Oregon law.
Similar to prior years, most of the qualified patients who used the medication to hasten death were over 65, had a terminal diagnosis of cancer, and received palliative care service through hospice. Additionally, participants tended to be well-educated (48% with a four year degree or more), had access to some form of insurance (96% with public or private insurance), and died at home (94%). The most commonly reported end-of-life concerns were: less able to engage in activities making life enjoyable (90%), losing autonomy (88.7%), and loss of dignity (74.6%).
According to George Eighmey, a former Oregon legislator and tireless champion for those who are terminally ill, "The 14 year report continues to prove that Oregon's law is seldom used, but provides a safe and humane option for all those facing their end of life."
The Oregon Public Health Division makes all of the reports available online. Also available are documents about the history of the law, requirements for qualification, and the text of the law.
http://www.deathwithdignity.org/2012/...
BruceEdwards3 writes:
(quote)
When the Washington Department of Health issued its third annual report on the Washington State Death with Dignity Act in early May, there was little interest from the media and no good news for opponents of patient autonomy at the end-of-life.
The lack of interest from the media tells us there was nothing sensational and no controversies to report. On the other hand, less media coverage means less awareness about the law.
Only 16 more people received prescriptions for life-ending medication as compared to 2010, and only 10 more died after receiving prescriptions. Of the 94 individuals who died, 70 self-administered medication, and 19 didn't—32% of patients who acquired prescriptions in 2011 elected not to take the medication. This is bad news for opponents who claimed that people who use the law would be anxious to die and would take the medication prematurely. The report indicates just the opposite.
Other claims by opponents, such as "patients wouldn't need the option if they had good palliative (comfort) care," or that "patients will be encouraged to use the law to save money," have been debunked by Washington's and Oregon's annual reports which indicate that the vast majority of patients who use the law were enrolled on hospice at the time of death and had health insurance.
Additionally patients' concerns about pain control or the financial implications of treatment were both at the bottom of the list of end-of-life concerns of those who died after acquiring medication. As in prior years, their major concerns were loss of autonomy and dignity, and the loss of ability to participate in activities that make life enjoyable.
Prescriptions were written by 80 different physicians in 2011 (up from 68 in 2010) and dispensed by 46 different pharmacies. Participating physicians wrote an average of 1.3 prescriptions in 2011, and pharmacies filled an average of 2.2 prescriptions. This contrasts sharply with claims by opponents that only a few physicians would help the majority of patients who used the law.
An issue not fully addressed by the report is the difficulty that some patients face finding participating physicians in certain regions of the state. While considerable support for the law exists throughout Washington (the ballot measure received majority support in 30 of 39 counties), the 2011 report indicates only five out of 94 patients who died after acquiring—but not necessarily using—life-ending medication lived in Central and Eastern Washington.
(continued) ...
http://www.deathwithdignity.org/2012/...
redbird writes:
Sorry to disagree, but most, if not all, healthcare premiums have risen significantly. Just because you want it to be true does not make it that way.
raptorman#455959 (Inactive) writes:
Yes it is. 4 years ago I was paying $745 a month to cover my family. Today it is $1,149. In one month it is set to go up again, this time to $1,285. Same company, same coverage. I can no longer afford to pay it. So next month, I will be without insurance. There is not one line in the Obamacare legislation that deals with cutting cost. Not one. There are however, many that deal with more taxes.
snoozy writes:
Obviously you don't know how hospice operates. Almost always it is palliative pain medications which are given towards the end of life and the individual goes into a semi or non-cognizant state and passes without extraordinary life support. In fact all nourishment is taken away. This is always done with the patients knowledge and approval. It is very similar as to what is done in the Netherlands, the terminally ill patient petitions for the doctors to come and examine them, at the patients request and with the Doctors approval drugs are supplied to the patient which allow the patient to die with dignity.
Even the Russians where more humane than what you a proscribing, they would take the prisoner out and tell them they were going to be questioned and than walk behind them and shoot them in the back of the head. No pain, no warning, just execution without the terror or stress of a firing squad. I would think that is better than having to die with excruciating pain. If you are so afraid of dying maybe you should watch out for meteorites and sink holes. I am sure your God would approve.
redbird writes:
You are correct in your comment regarding the administration of pain medication in a hospice environment. However nourishment is not "taken away" as you put it. Instead patients lose both the desire and ability to eat towards the end of life. Hospice workers encourage caregivers not to try to force near death terminal patients to eat since it only causes nausea. The services provided by hospice are, in most cases, both compassionate and kind.
Middleman writes:
And 5 years ago your premium was cheaper than 4 years ago, as they've been going up, and up, and up, for years. Why? Because our faux "free market" healthcare system isn't free market at all. It does not allow the consumer a real, viable, or meaningful choice.
Premiums aren't rising because of the Healthcare law, they're rising in spite of it.
RonnieD writes:
Who determines what is "needless suffering"?
Try the person suffering and "if" the two doctors agree. It would be up to the person dying.
RonnieD writes:
You really are a loose cannon. The President nor the Affordable Healthcare Act has anything to do with this.
Stop listening to your TP friends and Faux-almost news, and start thinking for yourself.
raptorman#455959 (Inactive) writes:
Sorry, only partially true. Premiums are rising faster than ever before because of the healthcare law. Like isaid. NOT one line in the law does anything to lower costs. Not one. I have been in the insurance industry for over 20 years and have never seen premiums rise so fast than the last 4-5 years. Believe what you want, but the premiums are only going up. the ACA will do nothing to stop it. And next January when people are required to have insurance or pay a tax it will get worse. Not better.
Two of the biggest reason costs have gone up are directly related to the bill. First, no more pre-existing conditions. Second, no more limits on maximum payouts. Only an fool would believe that insurance companies could stay in business at the old rates with those two new requirements. They have to raise rates to stay in business. Of course that is the ultimate goal, put them out of business. That and the VA healthcare system. Once everyone is covered, the VA is redundant. And the VA hospitals and medical facilities can be used for the ACA program.
raptorman#455959 (Inactive) writes:
After watching my mother in law get eaten away by cancer, the pain she went through, the total loss of dignity of losing control of bodily functions. I see no reason to not assist people in the end. There was no cure for her. Her last 4 weeks were the worst 4 weeks of life, if you could call it that, that she ever endured. 4 weeks of pain, suffering, and being totally dependent on someone else for everything from water to wiping her bottom.
It was after that, I changed my mind about Kevorkian. He had the right idea.
Middleman writes:
This conveniently ignores the fact that they will be gaining 10's of millions of new customers. You know why the insurance companies were so quiet during the healthcare debate? Because they'll be raking in the dough, pre-existing conditions or not.
The problem with our healthcare system isn't law. The problem with our healthcare system is that it's strictly a for profit business, and not a system founded in "care". These two things will never jive.
Nothing will change until that changes.
LDouglas writes:
Lots of interesting comments but I respond to this one:
"You, nor any doctor, no matter how good a doctor, is qualified enough to determine the proper time of death for anyone."
1loosecannon,
Nobody is asking the doctors to decide what a person hasn't already decided for themselves. They're just being asked to verify there is no hope of recovery before carrying out their wishes.
LDouglas writes:
Well I will also add health insurance premiums have been rising every 6 months for years before Obamacare.
That said, I'm not convinced the extra people in the pool will be enough to cover the new mandates.
We should have done a basic single payer plan (non profit), funded through taxes so everyone contributes.
Then let the free market sell additional coverage.
And no matter what, we should be more pro-active on prevention and the comparative effectiveness studies or it's only a matter of time before the whole system will collapse.
raptorman#455959 (Inactive) writes:
Right. Like you believe that? People can't afford it today, what makes you think they will be able to afford it Jan. 1, 2014? Let's break it down. My cost last year. 1,149 a month in premiums. $13,788. Now, lets add in the deductible. 3 people, $4,000 deductible per person. $12,000. But, they cap it at $10,000 per family. So, my total out of pocket for the year, $23,788. Now of course this does not include the $30 co-pay for any doctors visit. But wait, the Government is going to give us money to help pay for this right? That is part of plan. So lets say they give us 50% of our premiums. That still leaves out of pocket expense's of $16,894. Yup, that brought my cost way down.
As to more people being in the plan bringing down cost's. It's a fallacy. More people means more charges being paid.
redbird writes:
25% of healthcare costs go to persons in last years of life. If there ever was a slippery slope then savings from limited care for the elderly is it. Guaranteed there will be attempts to limit care for the elderly proposed as meaningful attempts to save and reduce the growing cost of healthcare. This will be proposed as legislation to accomodate those on lifesaving care who supposedly wish to die. Promote this kind of thinking and it will be no time before all care is rationed to only those who meet criteria established by political hacks and bigots. Wait and see.
Middleman writes:
Again, insurance is a profit-driven business, not a viable healthcare solution. This is the inevitable result of a system that relies on for-profit insurance for healthcare. Your premium was going up years before the law was passed, and if you didn't know that you weren't paying attention. The overwhelming majority of the healthcare law hasn't gone into effect, yet your premiums increased faster for what reason? Simply because they can(among other things such as who determines cost etc...). I'm not particularly a fan of the law because it relies way too much on insurance, which again does not play nice with health and care.
Your "fallacy" exists because the health care, and health insurance industries are not subject to the same rules that govern other free market business industries. You don't generally shop around for a doctor or surgeon when you're in need of care. There's no real competition and for that reason the costs increase, and by association, your premiums. There's no business logic, because the system doesn't demand any of the key players.
Insurance companies are going to be adding millions of young(healthy) customers who the majority of, will not be using healthcare services, but will be paying into the system. This is a gold mine for insurance companies(as a side note, we'll finally get to see if "private industry can manage a social security-like system better than the government). As for pre-existing conditions, what's the point of having insurance as the main component of healthcare in this country if it doesn't pay for your care?
I get what you're saying. The law has done nothing to control the costs of your healthcare premiums. As frustrating as that is, unless a law fundamentally changes the way healthcare works in this country, nothing is going to lower your premiums, or keep them the same. The purpose of a business is to make money, not help you spend less of yours.
LDouglas writes:
"Promote this kind of thinking and it will be no time before all care is rationed to only those who meet criteria established by political hacks and bigots. Wait and see."
As opposed to CEO's and bean counters? But I would think it's coming regardless. Too many of us and the number of boomers hitting Medicare age. And them not really being as healthy a population as their parents were.
I imagine our kids generation will be even less healthy as they get older- between the typical American diet and the number of genes that have been damaged by the chemicals their parents were exposed to on top of what they're exposed to on a daily basis.
I can't stress more focus on prevention enough.
ITSMEAGAIN writes:
Monsanto and GMO's. Fertilizer and pesticides in the food chain. I hear 1 in 3 of us will contract cancer in our lifetime.
Since I don't believe in the bible and Hell, give me the choice to end my life with dignity, not creating a bloody mess when I shoot myself.
LDouglas writes:
Right ITSMEAGAIN, give us the choice.
And I've read, 1 out of 2 men and 1 out of 3 women will get cancer in their lifetime.
While the death rate from cancer is going down, the number of cases isn't.
In any case, not too many people go down without trying treatment first. And it doesn't come cheap.
LDouglas writes:
Here's something I think everyone can agree to- give people with life threatening cancer and other diseases the right to try experimental drugs not approved by the FDA.
It only takes a minute to sign on....
"Tell Congress to Support the Compassionate Care Act!"
https://secure3.convio.net/aahf/site/...
Mockingbird writes:
Good information...thanks for bringing it to our attention.
1loosecannon writes:
That would be suicide. Some people feel depressed with no hope of recovery; should they decide to end it all too? No doctor involvement, right?
1loosecannon writes:
you could always jump off a bridge. the fish will clean up any sort of mess.
raptorman#455959 (Inactive) writes:
Believe what you will. The cost of insurance has gone up faster because of the ACA. They had a wonderful opportunity to change how healthcare works in this country and blew it. Cost's are not going to go down. I don't care how many young healthy people sign up. Wait till all the taxes start hitting and the Government has to provide the reimbursement to people that they promised who can't afford it. I'm willing to bet that a lot of people will opt to pay the penalty tax rather than get insurance because it's cheaper in the long run. Knowing full well that if they go to the emergency room they will be taken care of.
LDouglas writes:
People who want to die because they're unhappy with life are different than people with a terminal illness. And if that's what they want, they don't need to have two doctors sign off on it.
One reason a person with a terminal illness needs the doctor so they can do it with dignity.
Want to participate in the conversation? Become a subscriber today. Subscribers can read and comment on any story, anytime. Non-subscribers will only be able to view comments on select stories.