Category: Death Education

Posted on

The State of the Medical Aid-in-Dying Debate

Diane Rehm updates us in her new book, ‘When My Time Comes’

Diane Rehm spoke during her book kickoff event Feb. 3, 2020, at the Sixth & I synagogue in Washington D.C.

By Richard Harris

Maybe, just maybe, America’s greatest taboo — talking openly about death — is itself dying a slow death. Too slow, if you ask Diane Rehm, author of the new nonfiction book, When My Time Comes.

“Until we overcome our fear about talking about death,” the longtime NPR host says, “few of us can have the end of life we envision. We’ve been so focused on living and accomplishing and moving forward that we don’t think about death as part of life.”

For 37 years, Rehm’s morning talk show — first on Washington, D.C.’s public radio station WAMU, then on NPR — allowed her to focus on living, accomplishing and moving forward. But that changed as she witnessed her husband of 54 years, John, decline to the point where he pleaded with his doctor to prescribe him a medication to end his life. And without a medical aid-in-dying law in Maryland, his doctor refused.

So, John Rehm, wracked by Parkinson’s disease, with a severely diminished quality of life, decided to starve himself to death. No water. No food. No medication. It would take him 10 days to die.

And that began Diane Rehm’s journey into advocacy. After signing off her talk show in 2016, she has immersed herself in the world of the terminally ill and studying the limited options available to those for whom palliative care (focused on relieving pain and symptoms) is not the solution to their end-of-life misery.

“We focus so much on happiness and joy surrounding birth, but we think about death as this place no one wants to go — but we’re all going there. Everybody is,” says Rehm in her office at WAMU, where she hosts the podcast “On My Mind.” A February 2019 episode discussed end-of-life issues and why so many people’s end-of-life wishes are not realized.

Discussing Aid in Dying

For several years, Rehm, 83, has crisscrossed the country, speaking to the terminally ill and their families, as well as advocates and opponents of medical aid in dying. She also talked to ethicists and physicians on both sides of the issue. It’s all part of an emerging national conversation about the right to die that Rehm has captured in her new book.

A companion public TV documentary of the same name as her book to be presented by WETA in Washington, D.C., is due out in the spring of 2021, and is being shown at festivals. See the trailer here.

During a speaking engagement in a church in Falmouth, Mass., Rehm asked audience members to raise their hands if, “you are one of those people who is not going to die.” Not a hand went up, of course, and it provoked a lot of nervous laughter.

Some of the crowd had gathered at that church for a “death café,” part of a movement that began in Europe in 2004 in which people of all ages talk candidly about dying, their fears and hopes for the end of life. It’s a sign that America’s reluctance to bring death out of the shadows may be fading.

The medical aid-in-dying movement for the terminally ill — some call it death with dignity —began in Oregon in 1994. It took another 14 years for Washington state to pass its law. “But since then, Montana (2009 State Supreme Court ruling), Vermont, California, Colorado, Washington, D.C., Hawaii, New Jersey and Maine have followed suit.

Each jurisdiction allows a patient who has no more than six months to live (certified by two physicians) to request a lethal dose of medication as long as that person has the capacity to decide and can self-administer.

Changing Minds on Medical Aid in Dying

More than a dozen other states are considering such a law, including Maryland, where Rehm testified last year in support of medical aid in dying. The bill lost by a single vote in the state Senate. But supporters, including the bill’s sponsor, the Maryland House of Delegates’ Shane Pendergrass, are optimistic that the End of Life Option Act will pass this year.

“Everyone is one bad death away from supporting the bill,” Pendergrass, a Democrat from Howard County, said during a news conference in January 2019.

Case in point: Maryland Del. Eric Luedtke, a Democrat from Maryland’s Montgomery County, who originally opposed the legislation. “The two biggest things that gave me pause were the concern about normalizing suicide (three of his family members had attempted suicide) and that some folks in the disabilities community believed aid in dying could be abused,” he told Rehm, who included his comments in her book.

Then, Luedtke’s mother, stricken with esophageal cancer, was in extreme pain — even with palliative care. A few days before she died, “she got the bottle of liquid morphine she had been prescribed, tried to drink it, tried to commit suicide,” he said.

A few months after his mother died, Luedtke signed on to the bill. “I began to question whether I had the right as an elected official, or even as her next of kin, to make that decision (of whether she could use a lethal prescription),” he said. “I think her death would have been less painful and there would have been more closure, had that option been available to her.”

Joe Fab, producer and director of Rehm’s documentary, became interested in end-of-life issues after his sister and both his parents died within four years. “We are just too frozen up in this country, talking about death,” he says.

The Core Conflict

Dr. Lonnie Shavelson, a former emergency room doctor who founded Bay Area End of Life Options in Calfornia, distilled the complex debate surrounding medical aid in dying, to a phrase, included in Rehm’s book: “You’ve got the ethic of autonomy against the ethic of maintaining life.”

The American Medical Association sides with maintaining life, opposing what it still calls “physician-assisted suicide” because the group says it’s “incompatible with the physician’s role as a healer.”

The question that remains unsettled in the context of the physician’s Hippocratic Oath is whether a doctor does more harm than good in writing a lethal prescription for a suffering, terminally ill patient.

The Catholic Church and other religious groups have not given their blessing to medical aid in dying. Diane Rehm is quick to say she respects all opposing views, but remains steadfast in her support for the terminally ill individual choosing when his or her life should end.

The public likely associates two people — Jack Kevorkian and Brittany Maynard — with medical aid in dying more than anyone else. Kevorkian, the controversial pathologist who assisted in the deaths of 130 terminally ill patients in the 1990s and was sent to prison, kicked off the national debate over the right to die.

But it was Maynard who put a new, young face on the right-to-die movement and perhaps did more than anyone in accelerating the growth of laws. Given six months to live with a brain tumor, Maynard moved to Oregon to take advantage of that state’s death-with-dignity law. Before she died on Nov. 1, 2014 at 29, her videos promoting medical aid in dying went viral.

Rehm’s Take on the Subject

At the conclusion of Rehm’s book and documentary, she asks her grandson, Benjamin Zide, a Dartmouth sophomore studying medical ethics, to pick up his phone and take a video of her as she described what would be for her a “good death.” Here’s what she says:

“I came across a perfect paragraph that Anne Morrow Lindbergh left behind. She wrote, ‘To my family, my physician and my hospital: If there is no reasonable expectation of my recovery from mental or physical disability, I request I be allowed to die and not be kept alive by artificial means and heroic measures. I ask that medication be mercifully administered to me for terminal suffering, even if it hastens the moment of my death. I hope that you who care for me will feel morally bound to act in accordance with this urgent request.’”

Last night, as Rehm kicked off her book tour at Washington, D.C.’s Sixth & I synagogue, she recounted her mother’s suffering before dying at age 49 and how John Rehm’s father and mother committed suicide. So, the subject of death was part of the conversation at their dinner table, even before John was diagnosed with Parkinson’s.

Diane Rehm says she told her husband, “When my time comes, I need some help from you. I don’t want to live to the point where I’m sick and infirm and cannot take care of myself.” And, she says, “John looked at me and said, ‘I feel the same way.’”

Complete Article ↪HERE↩!

Posted on

We can’t be squeamish about death. We need to confront our worst fears

Patients, their families and their doctors need to be open about the inevitable as the virus sweeps through our population

By

As the coronavirus spreads through the population, there is one fact we can all agree on. Whether we like it or not, society’s greatest taboo – death and dying – has been thrust unequivocally centre stage.

How could it not, when government strategy is to allow the virus to infect huge swathes of the country in the hope of building sufficient “herd immunity” to protect from future harm? The virus has killed an estimated 3.4% of those it has infected, according to the World Health Organization, although this figure is expected to decline as the true number of people infected becomes apparent. Herd immunity, according to Downing Street’s chief scientific adviser, requires a minimum infection rate of 60% of the population. Thus we may face a potential early and unexpected death toll of hundreds of thousands of Britons.

There is, therefore, a glaring imperative to confront the topic so many of us long to squirm away from: the inescapable fact of mortality. As a palliative care doctor, I am intimately acquainted with our reluctance to square up to dying, and with the unintended harms of such squeamishness. Advance care planning – the phrase doctors use to describe proactively how much medical intervention you would wish for in extremis – is too frequently neglected, by patients and doctors alike.

Sometimes, for example, if an oncologist is less than candid about a patient’s frailty precluding any further rounds of chemotherapy, a family may be unaware that time is running out. Profound and vital conversations between family members never happen. Final messages hang in the air, forever unsaid.

Suddenly, the patient is comatose and fading. And no one has sought to find out if they would like heroic efforts at prolonging life – or if, perhaps, their final wish is to die at home, neither gowned nor tubed, with no machines and only loved ones at their side.

We are fast approaching a crunch time. NHS intensive care beds will be imminently overwhelmed with patients in dire need of mechanical ventilation. Italy’s experience has shown all too graphically that peak infection rates demand draconian rationing of health resources. In Lombardy, for example, some beleaguered hospitals have been forced to impose bans on ventilators for coronavirus sufferers aged over 60 – this despite knowing that it is predominantly the elderly who will die.

As Britain approaches peak infection, we therefore owe it to each other to start talking now. Would your mother, approaching 80, even wish for an intensive care bed? Do you, her anxious offspring, even feel able to find out? No one can pretend these discussions are easy. Our dearly beloved mums and dads are no less loved for their years; how on earth do we begin to broach the prospect of each other’s deaths?

If there is one thing I have learned from my time in a hospice, it is that these conversations rarely measure up to the degree with which we dread them. Indeed, for some elderly patients – conscious of their frailty – a little candour about the future can bring immense relief. It is fine to stumble, feel awkward, grope your way, get the words out wrong. In the end, all that matters is motive: the sincerity of your fumbled aim to tease out your loved one’s views.

Two medical truths may help you find the strength to talk and listen. First, every medical intervention has cons as well as pros. Even for young and healthy patients, intensive care is a gruelling experience that can leave serious, long-term medical problems. For the elderly, survival is more doubtful, let alone full restoration to good health.

Second, not every problem can be fixed. Sometimes, a disease is so aggressive that intensive care cannot cure, but only harm. When doctors conclude intensive care is not an option, it is not discrimination but a weighing-up of what might work, the sober balancing of benefits and risks.

In the end, an advance care plan need be nothing more technical than a chat over a cuppa. Steel yourself. Find out your loved ones’ wishes and tell them yours at the same time. There is kindness in being informed and prepared.

And – please – know that however besieged the health service becomes, we will never stop caring for every patient. You may be young, you may be old, but we will always do our best. How much you matter to us will never, ever run dry.

Complete Article ↪HERE↩!

Posted on

Protecting Trans Bodies in Death

Your life. Your death. Your rights.

***SELECTED SOURCES/ADDITIONAL READING***

“DYING TRANS: PRESERVING IDENTITY IN DEATH” http://www.orderofthegooddeath.com/dy…

“The Supreme Court is finally taking on trans rights. Here’s the woman who started it all.” https://www.vox.com/latest-news/2019/…

“R.G. & G.R. HARRIS FUNERAL HOMES V EEOC & AIMEE STEPHENS” https://www.aclu.org/cases/rg-gr-harr…

“A transgender woman wrote a letter to her boss. It led to her firing — and a trip to the Supreme Court.” https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation…

“Transgender woman dies suddenly, presented at funeral in open casket as a man” https://www.miamiherald.com/news/loca…

“Transgender People Are Misgendered, Even in Death” https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/ex…

Posted on

Living With Dying:

An interview with Syd Balows

By and

Our monthly column addresses the same set of questions regarding advance planning and end-of-life care to a variety of people in our community. Our intention is to generate discussion as well as collect information by exploring this one theme seen through multiple perspectives. Possibly we can develop a vision and next steps for our community!

This month’s interview is with Syd Balows who has lived at The Woods Retirement Community in Little River since 1999. He is active as a real estate broker selling homes only in The Woods. He is a charter member of the Death and Dying Group, which started in 2012 with 15 active members. In the Death and Dying group, there have been eight graduates and they all have received Gold Stars. Our current group ranges in age from 67 to 99 years old.

• In your experience in this community and your profession: What has been successfully advanced planning for?

Taking care of business! The 6 Ps says it all: Prior Planning Prevents Piss Poor Performance.

Our friend Sunny was also a founding member of the Death and Dying Group. She planned her dying process. She used VSED (Voluntary Stopping of Eating and Drinking). I spent time with her every day as she was going through the process of dying. Sunny had a list of 18 people she wanted to call and say goodbye to. I would dial the number and then hand the phone to Sunny. She would say, “Hi, I just called to say goodbye because I’m leaving this planet. You have always been such a kind friend to me.” Often times we were holding hands as the tears flowed as she was saying goodbye to her many friends.

Sunny made previous arrangements with a home funeral facilitator. Sunny had chosen to have a Celebration of Life party in her living room. Her cardboard casket was on a table awaiting decorations and wishes for a safe journey. She had a green burial in Caspar Cemetery.

When you make your own decisions you take the burden away from someone else. Be as detailed as you can be to avoid resentment with family members. Many siblings never talk to each other again because of resentments. Think clearly about what you give your beneficiaries. I have seen the men in the family get the business and the women get the furniture.

• What gaps do you see in advanced planning?

Honesty – being truthful about inheritance. If the dying elder changes their mind about who the family executor will be and doesn’t share that change with the family, the results can be a family breakup.

For example, David was told by his parental unit he would be the executor of their estate. The parental unit changed their minds about which sibling was going to be executor. They chose the oldest daughter, RN Ann, to be executor and daughter, RN Laura, to be co-executor. The parents signed all the right forms to make the change of executors but didn’t tell David that he was relieved of his duties. The elders didn’t want a conflict. He was really pissed!

Laura took care of Mom every weekend for four years. After Laura reached burnout, she asked Ann to become the new caregiver. Ann quit her job at the VA, moved out of her home into a suitable rental on the river and became the POA – power of attorney – for health care until the end of Mom’s life, four years later.

David and his sisters disagreed about whether they were to be paid caregivers for their parents, or if they were supposed to donate their time to the estate as co-executors. Because there was nothing spelled out in the legal documents that addressed these issues, it caused a family conflict.

• What have you seen work about end-of-life care?

Acceptance. Accept the things I can’t change. Change the things I can.

Community works. Like-minded people sharing space as we age “right on schedule.”

“Neighbors helping neighbors.” My dying group has had many graduates. We all got to help each other through the process and that has been great for our group. Get the paperwork done to say what you want it to say. “Say what you mean and mean what you say.”

• What gaps do you see in end of life care?

Our local medical system is not very dependable. The fate of the hospital and its chance of survival is having a huge impact on people moving here and people wanting to move away. We have a rural hospital that, to survive, must have an affiliation with a larger hospital group with deeper pockets. We need to have a Medicare-approved hospice, rather than our previous volunteer hospice. A Medicare hospice will serve the community better.

Real estate sales in The Woods in Little River has decreased because elders do not want to live in a community without medical service and a viable hospital. Election years are always bad for real estate.

Recruiting staff for the hospital is difficult for the same reasons that people do not want to commit to coming here if they do not know if their jobs are permanent. But people who live on the coast accept the fact that they will have less in the way of medical care than someone living in a city and plan accordingly. We know that we have to travel for care.

Elder financial abuse is rampant. I have heard of family caregivers removing jewels, a granddaughter set up a meth lab in an elder’s home, changed bank accounts into her name and brought in friends to live freely. There is no return of funds lost.

Many surviving spouses do not know how to deal with household finances. They need help or to have someone in charge to go through this phase. If the spouse who does know does not share the information, it is almost tragic because you have left that person paralyzed.

• Is there anything else you would like to add?

The aging process takes place every day and is frequently life-altering. It is a loss that you can no longer do today what you could do yesterday and that could be frightening. The quality of life is way more important to me than the quantity of life. Healthy aging requires acceptance of the reality of the living and dying process. Birth and death are the natural evolution of coming and going.

Death isn’t that bad a thing, because afterward there has never ever been even one single complaint.

Complete Article ↪HERE↩!

Posted on

How Does a Buddhist Monk Face Death?

If we learn to celebrate life for its ephemeral beauty, its coming and going, we can make peace with its end.

Geshe Dadul Namgyal

By George Yancy

This is the first in a series of interviews with religious scholars from several faiths — and one atheist — on the meaning of death. This month’s conversation is with Geshe Dadul Namgyal, a Tibetan Buddhist monk who began his Buddhist studies in 1977 at the Institute of Buddhist Dialectics in Dharamsala, India, and went on to earn the prestigious Geshe Lharampa degree in 1992 at Drepung Loseling Monastic University, South India. He also holds a master’s degree in English Literature from Panjab University, Chandigarh, India. He is currently with the Center for Contemplative Science and Compassion-Based Ethics, Emory University. This interview was conducted by email. — George Yancy

George Yancy: I was about 20 years old when I first became intrigued by Eastern thought, especially Buddhism. It was the transformation of Siddhartha Gautama to the Buddha that fascinated me, especially the sense of calmness when faced with competing desires and fears. For so many, death is one of those fears. Can you say why, from a Buddhist perspective, we humans fear death?

Dadul Namgyal: We fear death because we love life, but a little too much, and often look at just the preferred side of it. That is, we cling to a fantasized life, seeing it with colors brighter than it has. Particularly, we insist on seeing life in its incomplete form without death, its inalienable flip side. It’s not that we think death will not come someday, but that it will not happen today, tomorrow, next month, next year, and so on. This biased, selective and incomplete image of life gradually builds in us a strong wish, hope, or even belief in a life with no death associated with it, at least in the foreseeable future. However, reality contradicts this belief. So it is natural for us, as long as we succumb to those inner fragilities, to have this fear of death, to not want to think of it or see it as something that will rip life apart.

We fear death also because we are attached to our comforts of wealth, family, friends, power, and other worldly pleasures. We see death as something that would separate us from the objects to which we cling. In addition, we fear death because of our uncertainty about what follows it. A sense of being not in control, but at the mercy of circumstance, contributes to the fear. It is important to note that fear of death is not the same as knowledge or awareness of death.

Yancy: You point out that most of us embrace life, but fail or refuse to see that death is part of the existential cards dealt, so to speak. It would seem then that our failure to accept the link between life and death is at the root of this fear.

Namgyal: Yes, it is. We fail to see and accept reality as it is — with life in death and death in life. In addition, the habits of self-obsession, the attitude of self-importance and the insistence on a distinct self-identity separate us from the whole of which we are an inalienable part.

Yancy: I really like how you link the idea of self-centeredness with our fear of death. It would seem that part of dealing with death is getting out of the way of ourselves, which is linked, I imagine, to ways of facing death with a peaceful mind.

Namgyal: We can reflect on and contemplate the inevitability of death, and learn to accept it as a part of the gift of life. If we learn to celebrate life for its ephemeral beauty, its coming and going, appearance and disappearance, we can come to terms with and make peace with it. We will then appreciate its message of being in a constant process of renewal and regeneration without holding back, like everything and with everything, including the mountains, stars, and even the universe itself undergoing continual change and renewal. This points to the possibility of being at ease with and accepting the fact of constant change, while at the same time making the most sensible and selfless use of the present moment.

Yancy: That is a beautiful description. Can you say more about how we achieve a peaceful mind?

Namgyal: Try first to gain an unmistaken recognition of what disturbs your mental stability, how those elements of disturbance operate and what fuels them. Then, wonder if something can be done to address them. If the answer to this is no, then what other option do you have than to endure this with acceptance? There is no use for worrying. If, on the other hand, the answer is yes, you may seek those methods and apply them. Again, there is no need for worry.

Obviously, some ways to calm and quiet the mind at the outset will come in handy. Based on that stability or calmness, above all, deepen the insight into the ways things are connected and mutually affect one another, both in negative and positive senses, and integrate them accordingly into your life. We should recognize the destructive elements within us — our afflictive emotions and distorted perspectives — and understand them thoroughly. When do they arise? What measures would counteract them? We should also understand the constructive elements or their potentials within us and strive to learn ways to tap them and enhance them.

Yancy: What do you think that we lose when we fail to look at death for what it is?

Namgyal: When we fail to look at death for what it is — as an inseparable part of life — and do not live our lives accordingly, our thoughts and actions become disconnected from reality and full of conflicting elements, which create unnecessary friction in their wake. We could mess up this wondrous gift or else settle for very shortsighted goals and trivial purposes, which would ultimately mean nothing to us. Eventually we would meet death as though we have never lived in the first place, with no clue as to what life is and how to deal with it.

Yancy: I’m curious about what you called the “gift of life.” In what way is life a gift? And given the link that you’ve described between death and life, might death also be a kind of gift?

Namgyal: I spoke of life as a gift because this is what almost all of us agree on without any second thought, though we may differ in exactly what that gift means for each one of us. I meant to use it as an anchor, a starting point for appreciating life in its wholeness, with death being an inalienable part of it.

Death, as it naturally occurs, is part of that gift, and together with life makes this thing called existence whole, complete and meaningful. In fact, it is our imminent end that gives life much of its sense of value and purpose. Death also represents renewal, regeneration and continuity, and contemplating it in the proper light imbues us with the transformative qualities of understanding, acceptance, tolerance, hope, responsibility, and generosity. In one of the sutras, the Buddha extols meditation on death as the supreme meditation.

Yancy: You also said that we fear death because of our uncertainty about what follows it. As you know, in Plato’s “Apology,” Socrates suggests that death is a kind of blessing that involves either a “dreamless sleep” or the transmigration of the soul to another place. As a Tibetan Buddhist, do you believe that there is anything after death?

Namgyal: In the Buddhist tradition, particularly at the Vajrayana level, we believe in the continuity of subtle mind and subtle energy into the next life, and the next after that, and so on without end. This subtle mind-energy is eternal; it knows no creation or destruction. For us ordinary beings, this way of transitioning into a new life happens not by choice but under the influence of our past virtuous and non-virtuous actions. This includes the possibility of being born into many forms of life.

Yancy: As a child I would incessantly ask my mother about a possible afterlife. What might we tell our children when they express fear of the afterlife?

Namgyal: We might tell them that an afterlife would be a continuation of themselves, and that their actions in this life, either good or bad, will bear fruit. So if they cultivate compassion and insight in this life by training in positive thinking and properly relating to others, then one would carry those qualities and their potential into the next. They would help them take every situation, including death itself, in stride. So, the sure way to address fear of the afterlife is to live the present life compassionately and wisely which, by the way, also helps us have a happy and meaningful life in the present.

Complete Article ↪HERE↩!

Posted on

Study suggests overtreatment in end-of-life care despite POLST

Patients with treatment-limiting Physician Orders for Life-Sustaining Treatment (POLST) are less likely to be admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) but may not always receive treatment that is consistent with their wishes, according to a study published online Feb. 16 in the Journal of the American Medical Association to coincide with the Society of Critical Care Medicine annual Critical Care Congress, held from Feb. 16 to 19 in Orlando, Florida.

Robert Y. Lee, M.D., from the Cambia Palliative Care Center of Excellence at the University of Washington in Seattle, and colleagues investigated the association between POLST orders for and ICU admission for patients receiving end-of-life care. The included patients with who had POLSTs, died between 2010 and 2017, and were hospitalized within the last six months of life.

The researchers found that of 1,818 decedents, 401 (22 percent) had POLST orders requesting comfort measures only, 761 (42 percent) requested limited additional interventions, and 656 (36 percent) requested full treatment. Patients with comfort-only and limited intervention orders were less likely to be admitted to the ICU; however, 38 percent of patients with comfort-only and limited intervention orders received POLST-discordant care. Patients with cancer were less likely to receive POLST-discordant care, while patients admitted for traumatic injury were more likely to receive POLST-discordant care.

“Lee et al have provided important new information about the relationship between POLSTs and overtreatment of patients at the end of life,” write the authors of an accompanying editorial. “These insights will assist clinicians in developing strategies to help ensure that hospitalized near the end of life receive only those treatments that are both desired and beneficial.”

Complete Article ↪HERE↩!

Posted on

Assisted dying is not the easy way out

By

One in every five Americans now lives in a state with legal access to a medically assisted death. In theory, assisted dying laws allow patients with a terminal prognosis to hasten the end of their life, once their suffering has overcome any desire to live. While these laws may make the process of dying less painful for some, they don’t make it easier. Of the countries that have aid-in-dying laws, the U.S. has the most restrictive. Intended to reduce unnecessary suffering, the laws can sometimes have the opposite effect.

My work as a medical anthropologist explores the field of medicine from a cultural angle, focusing primarily on birth and death. Over the past four years, I’ve studied how access to a medically assisted death is transforming the ways Americans die. I have spent hundreds of hours accompanying patients, families and physicians on their road to an assisted death. And, I have witnessed some of these deaths firsthand.

This research has taught me one thing: An assisted death is not the path of least resistance. For many, it is the path of most resistance. Those who pursue it face a range of barriers, at a time when their health is rapidly declining. Some patients navigate these waters successfully and manage to secure the coveted bottle of life-ending medication. Others give in to the opposition or simply run out of time.

History of the laws

The country’s first right-to-die law, Oregon’s Death with Dignity Act (1994), came after a fierce, century-long struggle to give terminally ill patients access to some form of medical assistance in dying.

Legislators in Ohio and Iowa proposed the first two of these bills in 1906. Known as the “chloroform bills,” they envisioned the use of chloroform on fatally ill or injured patients to induce their death, but their terms were so flawed that they never saw the light of day. Other legislative bills – introduced in Nebraska in 1937, Florida in 1967 and Idaho in 1969 – met similar fates.

When a committee of lawyers, physicians and activists sat down to craft Oregon’s Death with Dignity Act in 1993, similar ballot initiatives had recently failed in Washington (1991) and California (1992). To appease vocal opposition, lawmakers laced the Oregon statute with a long list of restrictions and safeguards.

Unlike all previous proposals, the Oregon measure no longer allowed for euthanasia. That’s the act of injecting a patient with a lethal dose of narcotics. Under the law, patients would have to ingest the lethal dose themselves – a final protection meant to ensure the absolutely voluntary nature of their death. The act also introduced a 15-day waiting period between a patient’s first and second request, intended as a period of reflection.

It worked. Oregonians narrowly approved the measure, but a three-year legal stay prevented it from being enacted. In 1997, Oregonians reaffirmed their support for the act, and it became law. Since then, each state that has added an assisted dying law to their books has either followed the strict Oregon model or, in the case of Hawaii, added more constraints. Those include requiring a mandatory mental health exam and a 20-day waiting period in between requests.

The letter of the law

Unlike other countries that permit assisted dying, such as Canada, the Netherlands and Belgium, in the U.S. intolerable suffering and an incurable medical condition alone are not enough to qualify someone for an aided death. A patient must already be within six months of the end of their life – coinciding with the admission criteria for hospice. That means protracted degenerative diseases with open-ended prognoses like amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) don’t usually qualify, at least not until a patient’s breathing becomes severely compromised.

Every year, dozens of eligible patients who apply for an assisted death are so close to the end of their life that they die during the mandated waiting period. And by the time a patient becomes eligible for an assisted death, they may have missed the window when they are able to ingest the lethal medication. In contrast to their Canadian, Dutch and Belgian colleagues, American physicians cannot administer these drugs to their patients.

Lou Libby, a pulmonologist from Portland, Oregon, told me that the physical manifestations of many advanced neurodegenerative diseases bump up against this requirement. Again, consider ALS. Alongside their diminishing ability to breathe, patients with ALS almost always lose their ability to swallow.

“You have to be able to ingest the medication yourself. And here you have all these patients who can’t even swallow.”

As I learned during my research, the stress over their ability to swallow can provoke a great deal of anxiety in patients, particularly when it comes to correctly timing their death. Taking the medication too early means cutting short a life still worth living; waiting too long means possibly missing their chance. To have the kind of death they prefer, some patients choose to die earlier than they would have liked.

Cultural roadblocks

Despite popular backing for medical assistance in dying – seven in 10 Americans support it – the cultural stigma and moral ambivalence around these laws remain potent. Across the country, many religiously owned health systems decline to participate in their state’s assisted dying law.

In rural parts of Oregon and along the coastal corridor, where Catholic health systems often run the only hospital in town, patients routinely struggle to find two physicians who will approve their request, or a pharmacist who will fill their prescription. Many hospices refuse to cooperate with a patient’s desire to seek an assisted death, leading patients to feel abandoned. Many assisted living and nursing facilities still prohibit the practice under their roof, forcing patients to make alternative arrangements, sometimes at a nearby motel. In trying to reclaim control over the way they die, these patients often are being stripped of some of that control in the process.

Medical aid-in-dying will become an even bigger issue as baby boomers face the end of their lives. It is mainly older patients who want access to an assisted death. In Oregon, for example, nearly 80% of those who sought medical assistance in dying in 2018 were 65 or older. Boomers, as in many other aspects of their lives, likely will want more say over their deaths.

Assisted dying reframes how we, as a society, understand the potential of medicine, not as a way to extend life but to mitigate the process of dying. Patients who endure intractable, painful diseases sometimes reach a moment when the prospect of staying alive feels worse than the prospect of dying. At that point, the idea of having a say over the timing and manner of their death can bring enormous comfort. But few are aware of all the hurdles they must clear to exercise this kind of control.

Complete Article ↪HERE↩!