My partner died in 2019 of cancer. Hospice services in Massachusetts were excellent, and she received medication to ameliorate her pain. The law here says that medication can be administered as needed to minimize pain, up to and including to the point of death if that is a side effect of reducing the pain. So "pain" per se is not the issue. The "dignity" part is what most people cite, believing that needing assistance with personal care--for instance toileting--is inherently "undignified" and a fate "worse than death." This is an affront to people like my partner who had been disabled since young adulthood, needing personal care assistance through most of her life.
The "Death with Dignity" groups (which used to be called "The Hemlock Society"
have an ableist viewpoint that extends beyond treating people with terminal conditions, and disability rights advocates note that people with disabilities are more likely to be pressured into choosing death so as not to be "a burden" on family, friends, and society in general. They note that while insurers will not pay for many home health services, they will foot the cost of "assisted suicide"--offering an economic incentive in addition to these other social pressures to "do the right thing."
"Not Dead Yet" is the preeminent disability rights group advocating around this issue:
https://notdeadyet.org/
What's needed is a comprehensive health care system that meets people's genuine needs, not an easy fix that benefits the insurance industry most of all.
I just thought I'd present an opposing view in this debate that has been generally ignored, even among otherwise sympathetic progressives.
Edit history
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
= new reply since forum marked as read