Euthanasia Controversy

Agate argues that we are kinder to dying pets than to dying people because of the availability of euthanasia. This is a chilling comparison. Many pets are killed because owners simply don’t want to pay medical bills, and thousands of unwanted animals are routinely euthanized every year.

On the November ballot, Proposition 161 would legalize physician-assisted euthanasia for dying humans. If passed, for the first time in civilized history we would treat dying humans like we treat our animals.

No matter how you feel about euthanasia, this proposition would be a bad law. It is poorly drafted, vague, full of loopholes and fails to provide fundamental safeguards that people should have.

Prop. 161 requires that a patient be terminally ill, with six months, or less, to live. Under the best of circumstances, that is a difficult call for doctors.

The patient must be of sound mind when requesting “aid in dying,” the euphemism used by Prop. 161 to refer to the physician-administered lethal dose. The determination that the patient is of “sound mind” is entirely up to the doctor. There is a recommendation, but no requirement, that if there is a doubt, a physician may ask for a psychiatric examination, with the patient’s permission. To receive the lethal injection, a patient must make an enduring request, which is defined as “on more than one occasion.” There is no requirement for witnesses, or a cooling-off or negotiation period.

The reporting requirement doesn’t permit stating the name of the patient who received the lethal injection. The physician need not report the incident for up to one year. This would make follow-up investigation very difficult.

MELVIN H. KIRSCHNER MD

Co-Chairman, L.A. County Medical Assn.

Committee on Biomedical Ethics