“Right to Die” Movement Makes Inroads in US Medical Communities
By Gudrun Schultz

The American Academy of Hospice and Palliative Medicine has released a policy statement adopting a position of “studied neutrality” on assisted suicide and euthanasia, mirroring a previous statement by the Canadian Hospice Palliative Care Association in November 2006.
           
“The AAHPM recognizes that deep disagreement persists regarding the morality of PAD [‘physician-assisted death’, formerly referred to as ‘physician-assisted suicide’],” the document states. “Sincere, compassionate, morally conscientious individuals stand on either side of this debate. The AAHPM takes a position of ‘studied neutrality’ on the subject of whether PAD should be legally regulated or prohibited, believing its members should instead continue to strive to find the proper response to those patients whose suffering becomes intolerable despite the best possible palliative care.”
           
Alex Schadenberg, with the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition, said the AAHPM’s statement reveals the growing influence of Right to Die Societies on medical associations. The language used in the statement reflects the influence of the language strategy adopted by Right to Die groups last year in an effort to improve the public’s perception of assisted suicide.
           
“Last year I attended the World-Wide Federation of Right to Die Societies conference in Toronto,” Schadenberg wrote in a press statement. “They explained that they had two focuses: One was to change the language--through polling and focus groups, they found that the word suicide had negative connotations for people. The second was to get leading medical associations to take a position of ‘studied neutrality’.”
           
“Last November the Canadian Hospice Palliative Care Association (CHPCA) took a similar position of ‘studied neutrality’. In 2005 the British Medical Association took a position of ‘studied neutrality’ but that position was reversed at their Annual General Meeting in August 2006.”
           
Leading bioethics critic Wesley J. Smith condemned the AAHPM’s statement as an “utter abdication of professional responsibility,” in a blog posting at wesleyjsmith.com.
           
“Assisted suicide is controversial, which is precisely why the guidance of the Academy on this crucial matter is needed. After all, what good is a position paper about uncontroversial matters? That takes no courage or leadership, which [are] precisely the qualities shown by the AAHPM.”
           
Oregon, the only state in the US to permit physician-assisted suicide, released its annual report on the Death with Dignity Act in March. While the 2006 report contains even less information on circumstances surrounding the deaths of individuals under the Act than previous reports, in addition, the authors of the summary adopted the language recommended by the Right to Die lobby. Instead of reporting on “physician-assisted suicide” the Department of Human Services reported on “those patients who participated in the Act.”
           
Physicians for Compassionate Care Education Foundation (PCCEF) accused proponents of physician-assisted suicide of manipulating Oregon’s DHS, under threats of litigation, to use “vague and misleading language” in order to cloud the debate on physician-assisted suicide.
           
“Despite this euphemism for state-sanctioned medical killing in Oregon, we need to remember that this report is about physician-assisted suicide,” the PCCEF stated in a press release. As well, the PCCEF expressed concern over the limited content of data in the 2006 Oregon report.
           
“The report issued today by Oregon’s DHS regarding the 2006-Year experience of physician-assisted suicide is amazingly brief and incomplete, and much of the past narrative-type information is not present in this year’s report.” 
           
Forty-six people died in 2006 after taking lethal medications prescribed by a physician under the Act--since 1997 when the law was passed, 292 patients have died under the terms of the law.  As in previous years, the strongest end-of-life concerns identified by those seeking assisted suicide were the loss of autonomy (96%), decreasing ability to participate in meaningful life activities (96%), and loss of dignity (76%).

In related news, assisted-suicide opponents achieved a victory in March when the Vermont House of Representatives rejected a proposal to legalize physician-assisted suicide. The legislation was a close imitation of Oregon’s law, permitting doctors to help patients diagnosed with terminal illness to commit suicide by prescribing lethal drugs.
The measure reflected the current language strategy adopted by Right to Die organizations, shying away from any mention of “suicide.” The bill was titled “Patient Choice and Control at End of Life.”
           
Schadenberg said the vote was an “incredible victory” that showed the impact of public involvement in the debate on assisted suicide and euthanasia.
           
"Many people of goodwill got involved and went all out by contacting politicians, financing, and supporting the campaign in other ways. Thanks to Vermont, we can now be sure that through a common effort it is possible to defeat the assisted suicide push everywhere."

Gudrun Schultz is editor of LifeCanada News.