Medical Society Forgoes Assisted Suicide Option

"Massachusetts Medical Society forgoes assisted suicide option," Daily Free Press, by Sydney Shea. December 5, 2011--The Massachusetts Medical Society voted last week to maintain its stance against physician-assisted suicide, according to an MMS press release. Although MMS officials recognized patient dignity in terminally ill people as a factor, more than 75 percent of the MMS’s House of Delegates voted against facilitated suicide at their assembly last week.

In September, the Massachusetts Death with Dignity Act moved one step closer to a spot on the 2012 ballot when state Attorney General Martha Coakley approved a proposed ballot. The proposition would still need thousands of signatures to pass, as well as a decision from the legislature. However, MMS president Lynda Young said in the press release that medically assisted suicide for terminally ill patients does not match up with the foundation’s objectives.

The MMS’s House of Delegates has recognized a policy against physician-assisted suicide, according to the press release, since 1996. Young said the resolution also includes “support for patient dignity and the alleviation of pain and suffering at the end of life.” She said that the MMS is committed to providing “physicians treating terminally-ill patients with the ethical, medical, social and legal education, training and resources” for the dignity of patients and their families. Oregon and Washington are the only states that currently allow physician-assisted suicide, where doctors can prescribe mentally competent patients with lethal medicine.

CMDA Member Andrew Osten, 2LT, MSC, USARM'12, Tufts University School of Medicine: "As I participated in the Massachusetts Medical Society discussion on physician-assisted suicide, several lessons quickly became clear. There is a long tradition in medicine – reaching back as far as we can trace our profession – which opposes physician-assisted suicide. Our current AMA Code of Ethics declares it 'fundamentally incompatible with the physician’s role as healer.' Physicians old and young, from past presidents of the society to new members, stood up in force to affirm this tradition. There were a number of others who testified with heart wrenching stories of great suffering and how a death with dignity might have alleviated some of this suffering. This argument shows the great importance of words. 'Dignity' was used by some to refer to 'an innate worth of a human as created being' and by others as 'the right to choose the time and manner of one’s death.' Moreover, there were clear misunderstandings of the moral and ethical concepts at hand.

"Concerns were raised that a strong opposition to physician-assisted suicide (or deliberate intent to prescribe a lethal dose) might prevent physicians from alleviating pain at the end of life (out of concern of hastening death via a second effect). While a strong majority opposed physician-assisted suicide, all physicians present found common ground on the exhortation that when faced with incredible suffering at the end of life, we must diligently work to relieve it. As Christian physicians, we must not accept the lie that the only way to achieve such dignity in death is through suicide. We must educate ourselves on the vocabulary and the ethical concepts at hand. In the months and years ahead, we must be ready to gently educate our colleagues, patients and the public by always promoting a culture of life."

Resources
Arguments Against Legalization of Physician-Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia
The Problems of Neutrality on PAS