To the Editor:

In his recent letters about proposed legislation to make medical aid in dying available as an option for people facing terminal illness, Silas Smith misrepresents the nature of the legislation.  I’m writing to correct his misinformation.

Mr. Smith conflates medical aid in dying with euthanasia and suicide.  However, numerous medical professionals and legal authorities consider them to be different situations.  

In euthanasia (which is illegal in every state), another person administers medication to intentionally end someone else’s life; conversely, in medical aid in dying, the law requires that the dying person must be able to self-ingest the medication on their own.  This is one of many safeguards in the law to ensure the autonomy of the person who has chosen to end their own suffering.

The law also requires that two physicians confirm that the person is terminally ill (with a prognosis of 6 months or less), and that they are making an informed decision without coercion by others.  The patient must make both oral and written requests for the process, and the requests must be legally witnessed by two people.  

On top of this, if either physician has concerns about the person’s mental capacity to make their own decisions, they can order a mandatory mental health evaluation before allowing the process to move forward.  Medical aid in dying is thus different from suicide, which applies to cases when life is ended prematurely and often occurs under extreme mental distress.

Thus, contrary to Mr. Smith’s assertions, no one other than the patient themself makes the decision about whether they will choose medical aid to end their own suffering;  it’s not “determined on a case-by-case basis” by anyone else.  Furthermore, the stringent safeguards built into the law prevent whatever nebulous “unintended consequences” Mr. Smith conjures.

There’s nothing in the law that forces anyone to utilize it, so Mr. Smith and his family are free to follow his conscience and not use it if they choose.  However, Mr. Smith has no right to impose his own conscience onto other people and their families and deny them options that might be right for them.  Rather, the conscionable thing to do is to allow other people and their families to make their own best decisions for themselves.

Paul Siskind

Norwood