In addition to my concerns about the public policy implications of legalizing physican-assisted suicide, I also agree with many of the points raised by the NCD, Not Dead Yet and other disability groups that see in legalization a special danger for people with disabilities and chronic illnesses.

For more information on the disability opposition to physican-assisted suicide, visit Not Dead Yet's Web site.  The California Disability Alliance also has a web site with useful information and links on this topic.

Click here to view an excerpt from the National Council on Disability Bulletin announcing the NCD position on physican-assisted suicide.
 
 

• Red Flag on the Slippery Slope
  My commentary in the Los Angeles Times, published Feb. 2, 1998. The story also has appeared in some other newspapers under different headlines. (This article is Copyright © 1998 by Laura Remson Mitchell)
  
  
• Letter to Daily News
  A slightly edited version of a letter I sent to the Daily News Los Angeles in response to the paper's request for answers to the question: "Should California follow Oregon's lead and legalize doctor-assisted suicide." (The published letter appeared on the Daily News Public Forum page on Nov.15, 1997.)
  
  
• Whose Right To Die?
  This excellent article by Ezekiel Emanuel appeared in the March 1997 issue of  The Atlantic Monthly.  Emanuel examines the arguments for legalization and comes to his own conclusions.  I consider this one of the best and most thoughtful discussions of the issue I have seen anywhere. Unfortunately, the last time I checked (Oct. 31, 2004), access to this article was limited to registered subscribers. [Please note that this link will take you out of LRM's Place. To return, press the back button on your browser.]
  
  
• Assisted Suicide: A Disability Perspective
  Report on assisted suicide by the National Council on Disability. [Please note that this link will take you out of LRM's Place. To return, press the back button on your browser.]
  
  
• Physician-assisted suicide: When pain trails other concerns ... American Medical News
Editorial from American Medical News: March 19, 2001. This link will take you to the American Medical News web site.  [Please note that this link will take you out of LRM's Place. To return, press the back button on your browser.]


• Suicide Prevention Double Standard Excludes Disabled
This commentary, from the May 29, 2001, issue of the Daily News Los Angeles, isn't specifically about legalization of physician-assisted suicide, but it touches on related matters, primarily in response to U.S. Surgeon General David Satcher's call for a national strategy against suicide, now a leading cause of death in the United States.


• CFILC  briefing on euthanasia 
Analysis of the issue by California Foundation For Independent Living Centers. (Published in 2000. Link posted on this page 5-17-02.)

• Assisted suicide a threat to health-care system (pdf format) (View html version.)
I wrote this commentary for Capitol Weekly in response to the 2005-2006 legislative effort to legalize assisted suicide in California. Unfortunately, two paragraphs that I consider important were cut from the commentary, presumably because of space limitations.  Click here to see the ommitted paragraphs.

Contrary to popular impressions, legalizing doctor-assisted suicide involves much more than personal autonomy or morality. It's a matter of public policy, and it would have implications and ramifications that extend far beyond individual choice. In fact, legalizing assisted suicide ultimately would turn the "right to die" into a "duty to die," especially for people with disabilities and serious chronic illnesses like MS.

 It is clear from experience that there is a serious risk of abuse and that physicians and family members, rather than patients, are likely to be the real decision makers. But less well recognized are the subtle and indirect ways in which legalization would affect health care for everyone.

In a world of legalized physician-assisted suicide, would a health plan pay $10,000 a year for me to take an MS medication that could prevent or slow progression of the disease, or would the plan simply exclude that treatment, wait until my condition worsened to a point that I found intolerable, and then "compassionately," cover the cost of my doctor-assisted suicide? And with coverage of expensive new treatments curtailed or excluded (effectively destroying the market for any resulting product), why would anyone invest in research and development for new treatments? Similar questions can be asked regarding other conditions as well.

 Rather than legalizing doctor-assisted suicide, we should be improving the quality and availability of palliative care for terminally ill patients and of support services for family caregivers and for individuals with disabilities and serious chronic illnesses.
 
 

Laura Remson Mitchell

Go to the Table of Contents for this page.

This page was last revised on June 12, 2006.
 
 

Return to LRM's Home Page