Assisted-suicide opponents hope to get cases to Supreme Court

Assisted suicide continues to gain momentum, with 11 states poised to legalize it in addition to the 12 where it is already permitted. Patients’ rights groups continue to fight, hoping to get the issue to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The Patients’ Rights Action Fund (PRAF) argues the laws are “inherently discriminatory, impossible to safely regulate, and put the most vulnerable members of society at risk of deadly harm.”

The organization is leading the way to abolish the laws. PRAF has filed lawsuits against the states of California, Colorado, and Delaware, with more to come.

“The hope and plan is to get to the Supreme Court, and we believe that it’s possible that the Supreme Court would agree with us and abolish assisted suicide laws altogether across the whole U.S,” said Matt Vallière, PRAF president and executive director.

Samaritan stands with life

Health care sharing ministries like Samaritan Ministries also continue to stand up for life by not sharing for such procedures. As a pro-life organization, Samaritan Ministries will never support assisted suicide. Part of its mission is to bear one another’s burdens, walking alongside our brothers and sisters in Christ.

“To redeem health care is to honor the image of God in every person—recognizing, valuing, and protecting life at every stage,” said Anthony Hopp, Samaritan vice president and chief purpose officer. “For this reason, Samaritan members will never share expenses for assisted suicide. We devote ourselves to compassionate, dignifying care that relieves pain, upholds hope, and reflects Jesus’ love.”

Samaritan members are encouraged to walk with those who are suffering and not to leave them alone in fear. Be alert to any subtle pressures on loved ones.

Members can advocate for better care by supporting life-affirming care like hospice, palliative medicine, and mental health support.

Assisted-suicide groups offer false hope

Assisted suicide has been framed by advocacy groups as an act of compassion that gives dignity, relief from suffering, and autonomy to the seriously ill. These groups, such as Death with Dignity National Center and Compassion and Choices, are behind the efforts that have pushed to legalize assisted suicide state by state since the 1990s.

But what those groups offer often ends in abandonment and false hope for the vulnerable, Vallière said.

“These groups go find the people in each state to help them pass these laws,” he said. “But it’s not bubbling up out of the hearts of your average citizens of a particular state. It’s a small minority who are very well-funded and they’re very vocal.”

Group provides training, strategy

PRAF has fought assisted suicide laws and campaigned for patients’ rights since 2013.

“We do a lot of coalition work—the relationship building strategy with the stakeholders—and provide resources and training and organization to the legislative efforts in state houses across the country,” Vallière said.

“We consider assisted suicide laws as inherently discriminatory. They’re violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act and other anti-discrimination laws at the federal level, as well as the U.S. Constitution and most state constitutions.”

A growing and troubling trend

The 12 states, along with the District of Columbia, that already have legalized assisted suicide are Washington, Oregon, California, Hawaii, Colorado, New Mexico, Illinois, Maine, Vermont, New York, New Jersey, and Delaware.

This year 11 states are considering bills to legalize it­—Massachusetts, Indiana, Pennsylvania, Minnesota, Missouri, Tennessee, Arizona, Kentucky, Rhode Island, Iowa, and Virginia.

But legality does not equal safety or ethical soundness.

“In Montana, assisted suicide is practiced with impunity in part due to a state court decision that basically allows doctors to use a patient’s request as a viable defense in court were they to be prosecuted for assisting in the patient’s suicide,” Vallière said. “So, nobody ever gets prosecuted, and it is certainly being practiced, but without safeguards. No regulations, no tracking, no nothing.”

Redefining ‘terminal illness’

The statutes being passed in America are modeled off the laws of Oregon, which was the first state to legalize assisted suicide.

“The Oregon model is the idea that the person has a ‘terminal illness’,” Vallière said. “Now, it’s not always actually the case that the person has a truly terminal illness.”

Patients are supposed to have six months or less to live, with or without treatment, but that requirement can be misapplied.

"You could have a perfectly treatable illness and withdraw care, or say if you ended up being denied coverage or even delayed coverage for care, that could be enough for a six month or less prognosis by the attending physician, and they could write you a lethal prescription with impunity,” Vallière said.

Those loose requirements remove criminal, civil, and professional liability from physicians, he said.

The illusion of safeguards

The six-month prognosis standard is unreliable. A doctor’s best educated guess of how long a person has remaining to live can be and is often wrong since they are not the divine authority over life and death. Their inaccurate prognosis could cost lives.

“Doctors are actually more often wrong than they are right about prognosis at six months out,” Vallière said. “But why six months and not five or eight? It’s because six months is the demarcation for when Medicare will cover hospice.”

The national average for people who graduate from hospice and are discharged alive is about 14%.

“You can graduate from hospice, and lots of people do,” he said.

Vallière added that the physicians do not have to be of any particular specialty to prescribe the lethal drugs to the patient.

The original Oregon model includes a 15-day waiting period intended to give individuals time to reconsider their initial request to participate, but thosewaiting periods are now being shortened or eliminated altogether.

“The waiting periods are systematically being removed by the proponents themselves,” Vallière said. “So, the proponents put the supposed safeguard in place only to come back a year or two later and remove it. If they have a waiting period, that gives people time to cool down and reconsider whether or not this is what they really want to do, a kind of attempt at informed consent.”

Vallière also warned that once an individual makes the decision to go through with assisted suicide, there is no investigation done—no one to question it—once they die.

Engaging with legislators

Vallière encourages engaging with state legislators respectfully and knowledgeably.

“Talk about this issue from your own personal perspective,” he said. “Draw into the conversation as ‘I have a direct and personal story and experience that relates to this public policy, and I’m concerned about it for these reasons.’ You can connect as well, so it might not be your personal story, but every time you talk about one of the talking points, you want to bring it down from the head into the heart.”

Vallière advises using universal arguments like justice, discrimination, and patient safety rather than bringing in abstract ideology. PatientsRightsAction.org offers resources to help you keep up with the latest legislation and factual reasons to oppose assisted suicide.

While assisted suicide offers a way out of suffering that some find convenient, Christ offers His faithful presence and eternal life with Him. Christlike compassion and dignity refuse to abandon the living—no matter a person’s physical abilities, social status, or health.