By Victoria Reggie Kennedy, Cape Cod Times, October 27, 2012
 |
| Victoria Reggie Kennedy |
There is nothing more personal or private than the end of a
family member's life, and I totally respect the view that everyone else should
just get out of the way. I wish we could leave it that way. Unfortunately,
Question 2, the so-called "Death with Dignity" initiative, forces that issue
into the public square and places the government squarely in the middle of a
private family matter. I do not judge nor intend to preach to others about
decisions they make at the end of life, but I believe we're all entitled to know
the facts about the law we're being asked to enact.
Here's the truth. The language of the proposed law is not
about bringing family together to make end of life decisions; it's intended to
exclude family members from the actual decision-making process to guard against
patients' being pressured to end their lives prematurely. It's not about doctors
administering drugs such as morphine to ease patients' suffering; it's about the
oral ingestion of up to 100 capsules without requirement or expectation that a
doctor be present. It's not about giving choice and self-determination to
patients with degenerative diseases like ALS or Alzheimer's; those patients are
unlikely to qualify under the statute. It's not, in my judgment, about death
with dignity at all.
My late husband Sen. Edward Kennedy called quality,
affordable health care for all the cause of his life. Question 2 turns his
vision of health care for all on its head by asking us to endorse patient
suicide — not patient care — as our public policy for dealing with pain and the
financial burdens of care at the end of life. We're better than that. We should
expand palliative care, pain management, nursing care and hospice, not trade the
dignity and life of a human being for the bottom line.
Most of us wish for a good and happy death, with as little
pain as possible, surrounded by loved ones, perhaps with a doctor and/or
clergyman at our bedside. But under Question 2, what you get instead is a
prescription for up to 100 capsules, dispensed by a pharmacist, taken without
medical supervision, followed by death, perhaps alone. That seems harsh and
extreme to me.
Question 2 is supposed to apply to those with a life
expectancy of six months or less. But even doctors admit that's unknowable. When
my husband was first diagnosed with cancer, he was told that he had only two to
four months to live, that he'd never go back to the U.S. Senate, that he should
get his affairs in order, kiss his wife, love his family and get ready to
die.
But that prognosis was wrong. Teddy lived 15 more
productive months. During that time, he cast a key vote in the Senate that
protected payments to doctors under Medicare; made a speech at the Democratic
Convention; saw the candidate he supported elected president of the United
States and even attended his inauguration; received an honorary degree; chaired
confirmation hearings in the Senate; worked on the reform of health care; threw
out the first pitch on opening day for the Red Sox; introduced the president
when he signed the bipartisan Edward M. Kennedy Serve America Act; sailed his
boat; and finished his memoir "True Compass," while also getting his affairs in
order, kissing his wife, loving his family and preparing for the end of
life.
Because that first dire prediction of life expectancy was
wrong, I have 15 months of cherished memories — memories of family dinners and
songfests with our children and grandchildren; memories of laughter and, yes,
tears; memories of life that neither I nor my husband would have traded for
anything in the world.
When the end finally did come — natural death with dignity
— my husband was home, attended by his doctor, surrounded by family and our
priest.
I know we were blessed. I am fully aware that not everyone
will have the same experience we did. But if Question 2 passes I can't help but
feel we're sending the message that they're not even entitled to a chance. A
chance to have more time with their loved ones. A chance to have more dinners
and sing more songs. A chance for more kisses and more love. A chance to be
surrounded by family or clergy or a doctor when the end does come. That seems
cruel to me. And lonely. And sad.
My husband used to paraphrase H.L. Mencken: for every
complex problem, there's a simple easy answer. And it's wrong.
That's how I feel in this case. And that's why I'm going to
vote no on Question 2.
Victoria Reggie Kennedy is an attorney, health care
advocate and widow of Sen. Edward M. Kennedy
No comments:
Post a Comment