The euthanasia death last month of Belgian identical twins Marc and Eddy Verbessem, who were suffering from an incurable disease that had left them deaf for years and turning blind, is certain to spark worldwide debate on the right of a person to die.
The 45-year-old brothers, who were inseparable despite being deaf most of their lives, applied for assisted suicide after they learned they were slowly going blind in addition to already being deaf. The twins feared losing all possible means of communicating with one another. “The thought of only being able to feel each other was unbearable,” Belgian newspaper Het Laatste Nieuws reported.
“Physically, their conditions were strongly deteriorating,” Dr. David Dufour, who treated the brothers, said. When the brothers learned their bid for euthanasia was accepted, “a weight fell off their shoulders,” Dufour added. “They were happy and relieved that a date was set to end their suffering.”
Belgium is one of only three countries that allow euthanasia for non-terminally ill patients, the others being Switzerland and the Netherlands.
In March, the right to die debate was re-ignited in England when a judge allowed a hearing on an application of 58-year-old Tony Nicklinson for assisted suicide, which he had been seeking for years. The judge eventually denied his appeal in August, but Nicklinson, who suffered from locked-in-syndrome and paralyzed since 2005, died anyway from pneumonia after refusing food.
In the United States, the American people have been divided for decades on the issue of whether a terminally ill patient or his family has the right to end his suffering by terminating life support systems or by inducing death using medical means.
One of the most publicized cases that brought the issue of the right to die into the consciousness of the American public was the case of Karen Ann Quinlan. The 21-year-old Karen fell unconscious in 1972 after coming home from a party, and lapsed into a persistent vegetative state. After several months of being kept alive on a ventilator without improvement, her family requested the hospital not to continue the life support systems and allow her to die. The hospital refused, and the family went to court, making headlines throughout the world.
The New Jersey Supreme Court ruled in the family’s favor in 1976, and she was taken off the respirator, but was fed intravenously with artificial nutrition. Karen lived on – in vegetative state – until he finally succumbed to pneumonia in 1985, a total of 13 years as a comatose.
In 1994, Oregon became the first state to allow terminally ill patients to determine the time of their death by passing Ballot Measure 16, establishing Oregon’s Death With Dignity Act. On March 5, 2009, Washington joined Oregon as the only states that allowed assisted suicide by passing its own Death With Dignity Act, which was very similar to that of Oregon. On December 31, 2009, Montana became the third state to transform the crime of assisted suicide into a “medical treatment.”
Under Oregon’s law, a capable adult Oregon resident who has been diagnosed with a terminal illness by a physician may request in writing, from his doctor, a prescription for a lethal dose of medication for the purpose of ending the patient’s life. The request must be confirmed by two witnesses, one of whom cannot be related to the patient, be entitled to any portion of the patient’s estate, be the patient’s physician, or be employed by the health care facility where the patient is confined. After the request is made, another physician must examine the patient’s medical records and confirm the diagnosis.
The patient must be determined to be not suffering from a mental condition impairing his judgment. If the request is authorized, the patient must wait at least 15 days and make a second oral request before the prescription may be written. The patient has the right to rescind the request at any time.
Doctors are protected from liability for providing the lethal prescription in compliance with the law’s provisions, and the doctor’s participation is voluntary. The law also specifies that a patient’s decision to end his life shall not have an affect upon a life, health or accident insurance or annuity policy.
The debate over the right to die came to light again in 2007 after the release of Dr. Jack Kevorkian, the 79-year-old doctor who once admitted having assisted 130 terminally ill patients commit suicide. Kevorkian, also known as “Dr. Death,” died on June 3, 2011.
The debate is a very emotional one, and although there are no surveys showing how Filipinos would react to it, it would not be preposterous to say many would object to any law that would allow assisted suicide. Many Filipinos would hold on to the belief that the matter of life and death should be left to God, not human beings.
And yet, the questions persist: Who decides whether a life is worth living or not? Should certain people be allowed to decide when and how to die? Shouldn’t people who are in great pain and have no chance to live longer and better, or who are trapped in a vegetative state be allowed to die in dignity? Doesn’t the right to die also become a duty to die because to continue living in such a miserable state would not only be too costly, but also too painful and too traumatic for the patient’s family?
Tom McDonald, 76-year-old retired electronics technician from Lake Oroville near Chico, provided the most compelling argument for a California bill on assisted suicide when he testified during a Senate hearing on the bill in 2006. “Passing this bill this year means more to me than most because I’ve been placed in death row,” said McDonald who was diagnosed with terminal melanoma.
“My doctor told me I’d know when I’m near the end because I’ll be coughing up blood. I’m not too thrilled with the prospect of ending my life drowning in my own blood. I do not want my loving wife to endure such a sight. Nor do I want my daughter, my son or my grandchildren subjected to such horrors. Nor do I want to lose control of my dignity and my faculties but at this point I will be out of options,’” McDonald testified.
After reading this, I was reminded of my late father, who one week before he died, told me over the phone in barely audible voice: “Anak, gabi-gabi idinadasal ko sa Diyos na kunin na niya ako. Hirap na hirap na ako. Naaawa na rin ako sa nanay mo dahil hindi siya makatulog sa pag-aalaga sa akin. At alam ko hirap na hirap na siyang makita akong nagdudusa. (Son, every night I am praying that God take me now. I have suffered enough. I pity your mother because she can no longer sleep because she has to take care of me. And I know that she is suffering too seeing me suffer.).”
And in 2007, my brother hobbled in and out of death for 75 days before he finally succumbed from complications of kidney failure and after compiling hospital bills amounting to more than 1.5 million pesos. Although I knew my brother fought bravely, the doctors knew it was a futile fight and would perhaps have allowed him to die in dignity if the law allowed them. For those 75 days, my brother’s family suffered emotionally and financially. I cheered him on each time I was able to talk to him, but I cried each time after putting down the phone. I knew it was not fair to let him suffer the way he did.
The debate on the “right to die with dignity” will continue to drag on for as long as emotion and religious passion lord it over reason and reality. I dare stand behind reason.
I, too, would want to die with dignity when the time comes.
(valabelgas@aol.com)
