Right to Die with Dignity 

click to enlarge

So much about life is only an accident. Most people are willing to accept the premise that one has only marginal control over some things, and virtually no choice in others.

Take, for instance, the passionate demand that seeks the replication of the species. Certainly, physical intimacy should always be a matter of choice; anything less would be rape. Life starts out with millions of tiny Olympic-quality swimmers, charging upstream for all they're worth, hoping to reach and penetrate the multiple cellular membranes of a human ovum. There can, occasionally, be multiple successful sprinters, but generally there is only one who receives the "gold."

Thus is the competition that completes the first step in the creation of new life and, with a little bit of luck, that frenzied, all-out effort reaches fruition with a full-term "bouncing" baby boy or girl. No medals are awarded, but what has just transpired is truly what can only be described as the miracle of life.

That baby, just like the determined sperm that outpaced the rest of the pack, will face many obstacles during its onward path. Disease, environmental conditions, accidents and disasters pose incessant threats. And the sad thing is that many of those perfectly formed babies, children, teens and adults will not fare well. The world is rife with hazards that make it a dangerous place, cause unbearable pain, leave some of the best people disabled and bring that wonderful miracle of life to an end.

We hear so much about the rights of fetuses to live, but here's another question: What about the right to die? This is certainly not a new issue. It has both existed and been discussed throughout history and most advanced civilizations have allowed for ending suffering in a humane way. Like the debate over pro-choice and pro-life, the matter of whether a pain-wracked and hopeless human should have the right to end his/her life should not be governed by theologians. It is wrong to impose intractable suffering as the only choice, when there is no hope for anything better.

Unfortunately, the debate seems to be largely guided—or misguided—by some ascetic-like belief that pain and suffering are means that a god uses in the final test of the living. Many religions hold a similar view. But, should religious quirks determine who has the right to say, "Enough is enough, it is over. Let me go"?

The discussion over a person's right to ask for—and receive—a release from suffering, by choice, rather than chance, received wide attention during the late 1980s, when Dr. Jack Kavorkian began his crusade for the right to die with dignity. His premise was simple—that when life was pointless and exhausted, a person should have the right to name the moment of death, instead of wasting into something unbearable and horrific that serves no one's needs or fancy—leaving loved ones with the specter of a gruesome end.

He argued that it should be left to personal choice—something that is very much a tenet of our democracy.

Kavorkian was considered, by many, to be a bit of a whack-job or, even worse, an emissary of the devil. But his work has not been forgotten. He created several simple devices that could be used to end terminal suffering and allow his fellow-men to die with dignity, and on their own terms. Many saw him as a saint, and when Al Pacino took on his role in the film, "You Don't Know Jack," the world was presented with a great man, motivated by a genuine concern for others. Kavorkian's efforts led to Oregon's legislation decriminalizing assisted suicide.

Dr. Kavorkian died in 2011 and his name is rarely mentioned. But, the importance of his work has been celebrated by others, and there has been a worldwide push to legalize medically-assisted "suicide." While that "assistance" may seem, to some, as the act of "playing god," to force a dying person to descend into the fringe of humanity, before allowing their trapped souls to depart, is the greater sin.

We live in a time when so many diseases are characterized by wasting, intractable pain, and the slow or rapid onset of lost body functionality. This is the right time for Americans—and Utahns—to affirm medically-assisted dying as an inalienable human right.

While religious zealots may feel the need to scream, various surveys have shown that the majority of Utahns favor some form of legalized help in dying. A 2010 Medscape poll showed that almost 60% of the medical community favored a right to die, and a 2020 Gallup Social Poll showed overwhelming support from both the public and the professionals. At this juncture, roughly two-thirds of Americans believe that assistance-in-dying is a morally acceptable course. Across party lines, age groups, religious denominations, socio-economic divisions and races, the percentages of support are virtually the same.

The Utah Legislature has considered bills on the right to die at least five times in the past. Each time, our lawmakers have shown an insensitivity to the dying and made it obvious that they represent a religion rather than the terminally ill. This year, HB47 seeks to give Utahns the right to die with dignity, and we need to let our state representatives and senators know that the majority is in favor of passage.

This is not the time for politics or religion, and we must allow the suffering to choose a dignified release. It's high-time to make sure that the voice of the people is heard and respected, and that a minority is not allowed to enforce the suffering of the terminally ill.

The author is a retired businessman, novelist, columnist, and former Vietnam-era Army assistant public information officer. He resides in Riverton with his wife, Carol, and the beloved ashes of their mongrel dog.