To the editor:
I would like to give some context to New Hampshire’s recently introduced ‘death with dignity’ legislation.
Take note of three key points: 1) the bill specifically applies to an individual adult patient’s request – who must be deemed “mentally competent” . This includes assessing if judgement may be impaired by psychiatric/emotional or physical conditions. 2) the bill specifically requires the approval of of two physicians: the attending physician and a consulting physician 3) the bill requires a medically determined terminal diagnosis and “a condition of severe, unrelenting suffering.”
The further context that some people seem to be missing is that ‘terminal’ means the end – this is not something where the expectation is a ‘bump in the road’ before the person continues a long, happy life. This is end of life, regardless. That absolutely shifts the framing from ‘choosing to die’ to ‘choosing to control the amount of decline/suffering that preceeds death’. It is very much a matter of ‘dignity’ for a terminal (read: dying) individual to be allowed to determine for themselves at what point “severe, unrelenting” physical pain, slow loss of faculties, inability to practice basic self-care/hygiene, etc. makes accepting that inevitability the more personally resonant option. Not all symptoms of severe illness can be fully alleviated or alleviated without causing other impairments. It is rather simplistic to think that any/all such suffering can be made ‘OK’ merely by someone holding the patient’s hand and telling them they are ‘valued’.
The humane, caring response to terminal illness is to support the wishes of the patient – whether to fight to the bitter end or to accept death on their own terms.
Annamarie Saenger
Temple