LETTER: Opponents of assisted suicide use false arguments

I was deeply disturbed by your Sunday article on Senate Bill 239, the Death With Dignity Act passed by the Nevada Senate. You quote the group Compassion and Choices regarding the fact that there has not been a single case of abuse documented since competent, terminally ill patients in multiple states have been allowed to choose how to die. But then you go on to give large amounts of space to the opponents of the bill, who promote speculative arguments and actual lies with no evidence and no basis in reality.

I have been involved with the movement to allow patient choice for almost 20 years. During that time we hear the same arguments from certain disabled people that they will be forced to end their lives when, in fact, that has never happened. You quote two doctors who speculate about coercion with absolutely no evidence, and who falsely say that no data is collected on the practice. In fact, the Death With Dignity Act passed in Oregon in 1997 requires that extensive data be collected regarding the doctors and patients involved as well as the medical situation. The law requires a yearly report.

There is an enormous amount of data out there showing the practice to be safe and welcomed by terminal patients even if they don’t make use of it. A simple Google search turns up lots of data, but your article just ignores this. Likewise, the practice of allowing end-of-life choice has actually encouraged and increased the use of hospice care in the states where it is allowed.

You also promote the idea of a “slippery slope,” again a false argument belied by the fact that assisted dying has been legal in U.S. states now for more than 26 years and has not led to euthanasia of the disabled or mentally challenged.

There can be reasonable disagreement about whether doctors should be involved in end-of-life choices, and it would always be correct to respect the rights of a physician and patient to choose not to avail themselveds of assisted dying. It would be extremely helpful, though, if the Review-Journal did not promote false arguments.