For the next few posts I promise to vary my topics a bit, so I won’t be writing solely on the new Colorado law and its implications. But for this post, I wanted to spend a bit of time on the “big picture.” I had the privilege today of spending the morning listening to Jennifer Ballentine’s thoughtful and informative presentation on the new law and what it means in practice and policy for healthcare providers and facilities. Many of the folks there were from the hospice and palliative care community, several different residences (skilled nursing facilities, assisted living facilities and continuing care retirement communities) were represented and of note were the attendance of several first responders (EMS or firefighters). Perhaps in a subsequent post I will delve into the dilemmas of EMS providers who may be unaware of a person’s use of life-ending medication under the new law (as they are sometimes unaware of do not resuscitate orders). Many different people in attendance with lots of challenging questions. But only some of those questions could be answered by reference to the new Colorado law.
The situation with the new law was an abrupt sea change. The day before this new law was certified by the governor all of these folks from their diverse communities were continuing to discourage very ill people from thinking and possibly acting upon suicidal thoughts and wanting to end it all. Once the law was certified, then BAM – all that changed. No easing into any transitional period as California and Vermont enjoyed (with their “end of life option act” and “patient choice at end of life” statutes respectively) . . .
I will try to steer clear of the pseudonymous quicksand of what these types of medical services provided are called: physician assisted suicide, physician assisted death, (medical) aid in dying, (voluntary active) euthanasia, death with dignity, but it is challenging when there is no clear marker of when living is perhaps coming to a close and dying is well-nigh. I liked one blogger’s beef with all these euphemisms and her suggestions that we perhaps call it “assisted self-administered lethal ingestion.” I think this descriptor is best because it is so technical sounding and our new law champions a medical technique, with precious few indicia or garb of a “right” to die.
To wind up, I will turn to a quote from the late poet, novelist and social critic James Baldwin:
Perhaps the whole root of our trouble, the human trouble, is that we will sacrifice all the beauty of our lives, will imprison ourselves in totems, taboos, crosses, blood sacrifices, steeples, mosques, races, armies, flags, nations, in order to deny the fact of death, which is the only fact we have.
James Baldwin, The Fire Next Time
How to identify the boundaries of death versus suicide – where are the distinctions here among all the different labels? Our new law does explain that the actions in accordance with the procedure set forth in the End of Life Options Act do not constitute suicide, assisted suicide, mercy killing, homicide or elder abuse. Does this move our conversation forward? Can a law do this?
© 2017 Barbara Cashman www.DenverElderLaw.org