A friend passed the following to us. Since Parkinson's is in Morbity and
Mortality as a cause of death, I pass it on to you. FYI.
Jan for Paul
Subject: Deaths of Terminally Ill
Sent: 11/22/96 5:36 AM
Received: 11/22/96 9:43 AM
From: [log in to unmask]
To: [log in to unmask]
From: [log in to unmask]
Sender: [log in to unmask]
Reply-to: [log in to unmask]
To: [log in to unmask]
Originally from: [log in to unmask]
Originally dated: Fri, 22 Nov 1996 08:24:44 -0500
by: PJ King
Subject: Plan to Hasten the Deaths of The Terminally Ill to End Pain
Plan to Hasten the Deaths of The Terminally Ill to End Pain;
American Religious Groups Oppose Move
WASHINGTON, Nov. 17.--A task force representing the Department
of Health and Human Resources and the Justice Department, in a
detailed memorandum explaining the aims regarding the American
penal code, today announced its intention to authorize physicians to
end the sufferings of dying patients.
The memorandum, still lacking the force of law, proposed
that "it shall be made possible for physicians to end the intractable
pain of dying patients, upon request, in the interests of compassion."
This proposed legal recognition of aid-in-dying--the act of
providing a painless and peaceful death--raised a number of
fundamental problems of a religious, scientific and legal nature.
The Catholic newspaper Origins hastened to observe:
"The Catholic faith binds the conscience of its followers not
to accept this method of shortening the sufferings of the terminally ill
who are tormented by pain."
In Protestant circles, too, life is regarded as something that
God alone can take.
A large segment of the American people, it was expected in
some interested circles, might ignore the provisions for aid-in-dying,
which over the past few years has become a widely-discussed phrase in
the U.S.
In medical circles the question was raised as to just when a
man is dying and when his life should be ended.
According to the present plans of the task force, the diagnosis
of terminal illness would be determined not only by the attending
physician, but also by two medical specialists who would carefully
trace the history of the case and personally examine the patient.
In insisting that aid-in-dying shall be permissible only if the
accredited attending physician is backed by two experts who so advise,
the task force believes a guarantee is given that no life still valuable
to
the patient will be wantonly destroyed.
The legal question of who may request the application of aid-
in-dying has not been definitely solved. The task force merely has
proposed that either the patient himself shall "expressly and earnestly"
ask it, or "in case the patient no longer is able to express his desire,
his
nearer relatives, acting from motives that do not contravene autonomy
so request."
-N.Y. Times, Sunday, November 17, 1996
* * * *
I really wish I could know how many of you found this
credible clear to the end. What you have just read was, truly, an AP
newswire. However, it was not issued early this week, but a little over
60 years ago. I took the liberty to make some changes to make it
appear current. But for the fact that the U.S. Supreme Court has
agreed to review this matter next year, I find the above quite plausible.
For the original article, read on.
* * * *
Nazis Plan to Kill Incurables to End Pain;
German Religious Groups Oppose Move
BERLIN, Oct. 7.--The Ministry of Justice in a detailed memorandum
explaining the Nazi aims regarding the German penal code today
announced its intention to authorize physicians to end the sufferings of
incurable patients.
The memorandum, still lacking the force of law, proposed
that "it shall be made possible for physicians to end the tortures of
incurable patients, upon request, in the interests of true humanity."
This proposed legal recognition of euthanasia--the act of
providing a painless and peaceful death--raised a number of
fundamental problems of a religious, scientific and legal nature.
The Catholic newspaper Germainia hastened to observe:
"The Catholic faith binds the conscience of its followers not
to accept this method of shortening the sufferings of incurables who
are tormented by pain."
In Lutheran circles, too, life is regarded as something that
God alone can take.
A large section of the German people, it was expected in
some interested circles, might ignore the provisions for euthanasia,
which overnight has become a widely-discussed word in the Reich.
In medical circles the question was raised as to just when a
man is incurable and when his life should be ended.
According to the present plans of the Ministry of Justice,
incurability would be determined not only by the attending physician,
but also by two official doctors who would carefully trace the history of
the case and personally examine the patient.
In insisting that euthanasia shall be permissible only if the
accredited attending physician is backed by two experts who so advise,
the Ministry believes a guarantee is given that no life still valuable to
the State will be wantonly destroyed.
The legal question of who may request the application of
euthanasia has not been definitely solved. The Ministry merely has
proposed that either the patient himself shall "expressly and earnestly"
ask it, or "in case the patient no longer is able to express his desire,
his
nearer relatives, acting from motives that do not contravene morals so
request."
-N.Y. Times, Sunday, October 8, 1933
* * * *
I used the "search and replace" function in my word
processing program to alter the original article. Altogether I made 19
such operations. (One of these is technically three--different forms of
the same word.) Of these, 79% were nonsignificant--changes in
context (e.g. "Washington" for "Berlin") or in order to accommodate
evolution of language style (e.g. "intractable pain" for "tortures").
Two, or 10.5%, are semantic--substituting the current euphemism for
the older, distasteful term ("hasten the deaths of" for "kill" and "aid-
in-dying" for "euthanasia"). In other words, just short of 20% of the
changes I made were insubstantial.
The remaining two (10.5%) are the only significant
departures from what this news item was meant to convey in 1933: we
are not (yet) being asked to sanction the suicides of the incurable, but
only of the terminally ill. And we are asked to do so on the basis of
the almighty right of autonomy, rather than any moral code. Some of
you will insist these mark the difference between right and wrong,
acceptable and unacceptable. You say, "We only want to help
competent, terminally ill adults who ask us to help them end their
suffering!" In light of all that has been written and said in recent
months, this protest is wearing a little thin with me. Whereas I try not
to doubt the sincerity of some of my pro-PAS friends, the "right-to-
die" movement as a whole has another, somewhat-hidden agenda.
This agenda was apparent in the recent Hemlock Society
National Conference held in Denver on November 7 through 9.
Among the reasons repeatedly given for writing tight laws was that of
defusing the objections of prolifers. With "safeguards" in place,
carefully crafted legislation will overcome objections and ease passage
of these death bills. Despite apparent concern to avoid sliding down
the "slippery slope," however, many speakers questioned limiting
death assistance to the terminally ill. Why should not the "benefit" of
death be extended as well to the chronically ill and those with
irreversible conditions? And so we see the target "beneficiaries" as not
merely the terminally ill but the disabled and frail elderly as well. My
rewrite reflected, therefore, the "published" agenda, even though at the
core of the movement are those who will, if and when the time comes,
extend it to "incurables."
On March 6 of this year, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
found in the Fourteenth Amendment a "liberty interest" in assisted
suicide for mentally competent, terminally ill adults seeking to
determine the timing and manner of their deaths. However, in the
summary (lettered H) of Part IV ("Is There a Liberty Interest"), Judge
Stephen Reinhardt writes in his majority opinion, "Our conclusion is
strongly influenced by, but not limited to, the plight of mentally
competent, terminally ill adults. We are influenced as well by the
plight of others, such as those whose existence is reduced to a
vegetative state or a permanent and irreversible state of
unconsciousness." He further regards the decision of a surrogate
decision-maker as equivalent to that of the patient, thus allowing
someone else to beg the "liberty" of death for another unable to do so
for himself. The ruling thereby erases the line between voluntary and
involuntary killing and invites future cases to challenge the supposed
limit to the competent, terminally ill.
Judge Roger Miner, writing the majority opinion for the
Second Circuit, issued April 2, finds no "liberty to die" in the Due
Process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. He cites instead the
Equal Protection clause of the same amendment which requires that
similarly situated people be treated alike. The relevant class here is
"all competent persons who are in the final stages of fatal illness and
wish to hasten their deaths." The Second Court's ruling dismisses any
distinction between such persons' refusal of life-sustaining treatment
(already guaranteed) and the provision by a physician of lethal
medication. On this basis, refusing to allow a dying person the latter
is a violation of his equal protection right.
The decision of the Second Circuit, because less flamboyant
and outrageous than that of the Ninth, may seem to some (even
Supreme Court Justices and their aides?) to be "safer" and more
conservative. In reality, however, it is more dangerous. On what basis
could the courts forbid the extension of this "protection" of the dying
to those in pain who are not dying? How could it be withheld from
those with Alzheimer's disease who cannot ask for it? Why should not
"caring" relatives be allowed to help their loved ones die if doctors
can? If the constitutional right of equal protection can be defined so as
to include assistance in killing oneself, how can it justly be limited to
any one specific category of persons? To limit it at all would be to
deny "equal protection" to some. This is discrimination.
The real agenda of the "right-to-die" movement is not limited
to the plight of the dying who are suffering unbearable pain. Rather,
our emotions are being played on by these hard cases: who of us
would wish a painful death on anyone?
We are not so far from October 8, 1933. Time is fast moving
backward.
PJ King, RN
Chairman, Bioethics Committee
Pro-Life Wisconsin
