In its Nov. 2 editorial opposing Question 2, “End-of-life discussions, care should come before Question 2,” the Globe argues that in a world where patients are informed about and have ready access to options such as ending life-saving treatment and receiving adequate pain relief, the need for physician-assisted suicide would be lessened (but, importantly, not eliminated). However, we live in no such perfect world, nor are we likely to any time soon, and in the meantime, refusing to allow at least some patients to shorten their final days of unremitting misery is unnecessarily cruel.
As to the opposition of some in the medical profession, it's fair to point out that many doctors view the death of a patient as a personal defeat, and also that providers collect substantial fees in caring for terminally ill and suffering patients until the end mercifully comes. I would give their opposition more weight if there weren’t any ego involved and, I hate to add, also a financial incentive in prolonging such purposeless agony.
Comments
No, we don't live in a perfect world. We live in a world where unused medication of a dead person is sold on the street. We live in a world where virtually every narcotic available in a pharmacy is available on the street. We live in a world where insurance companies want to save money at any cost and end-of-life treatments are extremely expensive. We live in a world where young people are bullied and scared and in intense emotional pain and are depressed and suicidal, these people would surely get these drugs in our imperfect world.
Hospice care and pain management are available. Our answer to terminal illness is not to hasten death, but to draw nearer to the dying and embrace them. This law does nothing to lessen the emotional pain of dying alone and unloved. Please reconsider your stance on Question 2.
Respectfully,
Suzanne Gonsalves, Taunton