With several states having approved physician-assisted suicide, the American Medical Association (AMA) staked out a firm position opposing the practice.
Reaffirming its long-held position at the annual meeting of its House of Delegates, which took place from June 6 to 11 in Chicago, the AMA “overwhelmingly rejected” a proposed change in policy, according to the Patients Rights Action Fund (PRAF).
Such a policy would conflict with the AMA Code of Medical Ethics, which states, “Physician-assisted suicide is fundamentally incompatible with the physician’s role as healer, would be difficult or impossible to control, and would pose serious societal risks,” according to the PRAF.
The AMA also firmly rejected proposals to change language about the practice, including the term used in Canada and state legislation, “medical aid in dying.”
Eleven states and the District of Columbia have already passed laws allowing physician-assisted suicide. A bill in New York is awaiting Gov. Kathy Hochul’s signature.
The AMA has more than 600 voting delegates, who come from organizations such as state medical associations, national medical specialty organizations, and professional interest medical associations, according to the AMA website.
Firm Policy for 31 Years
The AMA published its opposition to physician-assisted suicide in its Code of Medical Ethics in 1994, and then, voting delegates firmly upheld the code at the AMA House of Delegates’ 2019 annual meeting, according to National Right to Life.
With states and nations increasingly passing laws allowing the practice, the AMA bolstered its opposition to physician-assisted suicide in the House of Delegates’ Handbook approved during this year’s June meeting in Chicago.
“Of note, the AMA’s position on physician assisted suicide is not a position of neutrality and establishes that the profession of medicine should not support the legalization or practice of physician assisted suicide or see it as part of a physician’s role,” the handbook reads.
“In 2016, the AMA initiated a three-year study of physician-assisted suicide which culminated in the AMA House of Delegates re-affirming the AMA Code of Medical Ethics in 2019,” said Dr. Jeff White in a statement after the AMA meeting. White is a PRAF board member and a former AMA House of Delegates member.
“Nothing has changed in the ensuing years to warrant a change in AMA policy and terminology,” stated White.
Silent Majority
The AMA’s reaffirmation is not surprising, says Tim Millea, chair of the Health Care Policy Committee at the Catholic Medical Association (CMA).
“There is still a vocal minority of AMA members that are supportive of assisted suicide,” said Millea. “However, there is also a ‘silent majority’ of members that understand the unethical and dangerous aspects of assisted suicide. Now that members of pro-life medical organizations like the CMA are speaking out in the AMA arena, opposition to these procedures becomes more obvious.”
Millea says assisted suicide is ethically indefensible.
“Assisted suicide, whether provided by a physician or any other medical professional, is antithetical to the ethics and morality of medicine,” said Millea. “The goal and function of the practice of medicine is to maintain health and treat disease. Making someone dead certainly does not benefit their health, and diseases are not treated by purposely ending the life of the person suffering.”
Name Games
The term “medical aid in dying” is just a euphemism for assisted suicide, says Millea.
“The medical professional is not ‘aiding’ in someone’s death. They are causing their death,” said Millea. “Regardless of the terminology used and attempts to soften its meaning, it remains assisted suicide.”
Advocates also use political tricks to deceive voters, says Millea.
“The proponents of assisted suicide are quick to pronounce the ‘guardrails’ of legislation to legalize it,” said Millea. “However, in every state where it has been allowed, within one to two years proponents move on to the next phase in their playbook.”
Proponents push to expand availability, shorten or eliminate waiting periods, and remove other requirements such as psychological evaluation or residency limits, says Millea.
“The proclamation of ‘guardrails’ is merely a Trojan horse to facilitate passage of assisted-suicide legislation,” said Millea. “After legalization, there are no guardrails.”
Compromising Physicians
One of those so-called guardrails is limiting doctor-assisted suicide to patients determined to have six months or less to live. Physicians can be wrong about a patient’s life expectancy, says Millea.
“The ability of physicians to predict life expectancy in those with terminal conditions has been repeatedly proven to be very inaccurate,” said Millea. “Such predictions are shown to be wrong more than half the time, with patients living months or years longer than expected.
“Prognosis is not a guardrail; it is a guess,” said Millea. “And guesses are not a basis for ending a life.”
Pain Deflection
The popular understanding of assisted suicide as intended to minimize pain is mistaken, says Millea.
“There is abundant evidence in studies and surveys that the fear of severe pain is not even in the top five reasons cited to request assisted suicide,” said Millea. “The most common reasons given relate to personal autonomy, diminished dignity, and stress on family members.”
There is a better way to solve those problems, says Millea.
“If the greatest anxiety relates to factors like those, the Catholic approach to end of life care is clearly preferable,” said Millea. “With ethical palliative and hospice care, the dying person and their family can be supported with respect and compassion during a most difficult time of their lives. Making someone die more quickly is not respectful nor dignified.”
Harry Painter ([email protected]) writes from Oklahoma.
Harry Painter ([email protected]) writes from Brooklyn, New York.