Right to Die Legislation

Right to Die Legislation

Dear Editor:

Rep. Linda Lopez (D-Tucson) has introduced House Bill 2454, which would allow terminally ill patients to request and receive from licensed medical doctors the means and medications to kill themselves. For the last 20 years Right to Die bills have been regularly introduced in the majority of our states; most of them constructed on a common model. They are all the products of a national movement earlier known as the “Euthanasia Society of America,” more recently the “Society for the Right to Die, Inc.” Some are known as the Hemlock Society (taking their name from the deadly potion used by ancients to end their lives, or to murder others).

This promotion of death as the solution to man’s problems is not something new, it is rather a revival of an ancient barbaric practice that encouraged parents to destroy weak, or unwanted babies, that encouraged the death of the aged and infirm and those in great suffering. Prior to the noble Hippocrates, doctors not only filled the role of healers, they also administered death. That is why the oath that Hippocrates gave us specifically said, “I will give no deadly medicine to anyone if asked, nor suggest any such counsel...” To pave the way for their euthanasia program the champions of death have given us the World Health Organization physician’s oath, which blandly states, “I will do nothing illegal.” Thus, if they can get some befuddled legislators to pass a pro-euthanasia bill, they can administer the deadly dose with out violating their oath.

While marching under the banner of “friends of the terminally ill,” the pro-death cult has its eye on several other categories of people whom they feel need the freedom to die, humanely and early.

They want to help those born with severe mental or physical handicaps to die with dignity. Dr. Winston Duke wrote, “...there is little evidence that termination of an infant’s life in the first few months following extraction from the womb could be looked upon as murder...” (Reason, Aug. 1970). Dr. Glanville Williams, strongly advocated legalization of both “humanitarian infanticide,” and “euthanasia for handicapped children” (The Sanctity of Lies and the Criminal Law).

They would like to help those with incurable mental illness. Dr. Robert Williams of Washington State Medical School wrote, “There are various levels at which one can consider the indication for euthanasia: a). A group of individuals who will soon be encountering death; b). A group with such severe mental damage as to be unable to express proper judgments with respect to termination of life; and c). A group with varying degrees of cognizance, but with disabilities so incapacitating and so common as to produce great hardship on society (Our Role in the Generation, Modification and Termination of Life, (J.A.M.A., 209, Aug. 11, 1960, pp. 914-917).

They would give the good death to those suffering from incurable disease.

They especially wish to assist those so advanced in years as to be unable to pursue a self-sufficient life and contribute to the community good. Dr. William Gaylin of Columbia University said, “We’ve always wanted the best for our grandparents and now that might mean killing them...” (Feb. 17, 1972). George Paulson wrote, “How long shall life be preserved when there is no redeeming social value? If life has no apparent purpose, perhaps it is to the benefit of others that such lives not be salvaged” (Who Shall Live, Geriatrics 28, Mar. 1973, pp. 126-183).

They would assist those whose personal problems are so great they find life unfulfilling. However they are not without their limitations. Most of the pro-death people exclude murderers, rapists and kidnappers, since most of them vehemently oppose capital punishment for such offenders. I find it odd that folks are anxious to help their aged parent die are yet ready to protest to keep convicted murderers from being executed.

Dr. Robert Williams explains the reason behind the push for the “Right to Die/Death with Dignity” bills. “...it seems unwise to attempt to bring about major changes permitting positive euthanasia until we have made major progress in changing laws and polices pertaining to negative euthanasia” (Northwest Medicine, July 1970). The late Dr. Walter Alvarez, a syndicated medical journalist, wrote in 1970, “It will probably be many years before we (physicians) in America can bring ourselves to chloroform an idiotic infant or to permit a slowly dying patient to take an overdose of medicine. What we will first have to train ourselves to do will be to leave by the patients’ bed a lethal drug, which he can take some night if he so desires” (As quoted in The Mercy Killers, p. 21).

The dangers in this type of legislation are evident:

Greedy relatives who would profit by an aged or sick person’s demise would be tempted to encourage death for personal gain.

Some medical personnel might be tempted to play God with human life. Such abuse already is a common occurrence as these “angels of death” secretly administer lethal injections to helpless patients.

The danger of government seeing this as a way to deal with a growing population of aged citizens who put an enormous strain on limited public resources.

What we need is a revival of familial love and humanitarianism. The Christian ethic at work in human lives will help those who are old and infirm. Those who love their neighbor as themselves (Matt. 7:12) will be willing to help bear the burdens of others (Gal. 6:2). Those who are strong will help with the infirmities of the weak (Rom. 15:1) They will strive to do good to all men, (Gal. 6:10).

It is a sad reflection on our society if the best we have to offer our aged and infirm citizens is a push into the grave.

Back -- or go -- Home