I think it’s safe to say that most older New Mexicans have come face to face with the universal and inevitable phenomenon of death — their own and the loss of their friends and parents. And in doing so, most of us have experienced in some way our culture’s neurotic view of death as a human failure; a failure of science and medicine and, somehow too, a tragic failure of character when one is finally defeated after a “long battle” with something terrifying. Our culture finds the defeat of death so abhorrent that it views helping a person in agony who’s terminally ill to die peacefully and with dignity as a crime, a betrayal of justice and life itself, not as an act of mercy.
When a terminally ill friend of mine committed suicide several years ago, she left a note explaining why she was choosing not to suffer the unbearable pains and debilities of becoming ancient. She expressed her disappointment and anger over being forced to suffer a slow and increasingly torturous process of dying when the medical technology existed to help her leave this world in peace and calm. She was furious that what she considered the most natural thing in life — the leaving of it — should be made so unnaturally difficult, writing that “we treat our dying pets better than we treat ourselves.” She recalled how Roman stoic philosophers used to say “the door is always open” with a deep sense of relief. She was outraged that for older Americans at death’s door, the door of life-affirming suicide in the face of excruciating and unnecessary suffering has been slammed and nailed shut in our culture.
In New Mexico this year, however, the Legislature came closer than it ever has to passing a death with dignity law. It’s called The Elizabeth Whitefield End of Life Options Act. It succeeded in three legislative committees before being tabled in both the House and Senate. Despite its temporary defeat, the act has wide popular appeal. The Albuquerque City Council even passed a resolution in support of it.
The bill, introduced in the House by representative Deborah A. Armstrong (D-Albuquerque), is named after the late New Mexico attorney and highly respected Family Court Judge Elizabeth Whitefield. When a version of the bill was working its way through the Legislature in 2018, the terminally ill Whitefield testified in committee that “cancer has stolen everything from me; my ability to work, my ability to eat, my ability to drink. Don’t let me die without dignity. I implore you to give me the choice that is right for me.” She died in August that year, eight months after her testimony had fallen on deaf ears.
The bill’s ongoing defeat has been a consternating sorrow for many of the nearly 75,000 New Mexicans who are between 70 and 84 years of age, all of us facing the brutal, cold-hearted realities of dying in our culture. The Whitefield act is not a license to polish off granny and pops, as has been implied by its “right-to-life” opponents. Quite the contrary, it is a meticulously devised set of provisions designed to help the dying pass on as they’d wish to, while protecting them and those who help them from exploitation and prosecution.
The basics of the Whitefield act are these: how to determine if the terminally ill person has the mental capacity to decide freely to end her life; defining what a terminal illness is; and determining that the patient “voluntarily made the request for medical aid in dying.”
The act also stipulates that the patient have “the ability to self-administer the medical aid in dying medication” and that medical care has been provided to “the individual in accordance with accepted medical standards of care.” The prescribing health care provider must also determine that the individual is “making an informed decision.” The medication provider must also explain the potential risks associated with self-administering the medical aid in dying medication and the patient’s right to decide not to use the medication after it has been prescribed. The prescribing person most also determine “in good faith that the individual’s request (for medication) does not arise from coercion or undue influence by another person.”
There is a form that a terminally ill patient must fill out that says, “I am suffering from a terminal illness, which is a disease or condition that is incurable and irreversible and that, according to reasonable medical judgment, will result in death within the foreseeable future.”
What some people consider “the hook” in this act is the extreme caution it requires in determining the “capacity” of a patient to make a decision to end her life. The act reads that “if an individual has a history of a mental health disorder or an intellectual disability, or if, in the opinion of the prescribing health care provider, an individual has a mental health disorder … causing impaired judgment,” the individual will be judged not to have the “capacity” to make an end of life decision. The act also requires a 48-hour waiting period between the granting of a request for such medication and the self-administering of it.
Among the most necessary provisions of the act is what it says about immunities and conscience-based decisions. “A person shall not be subject to civil or criminal liability or professional disciplinary action for participating, or refusing to participate, in medical aid in dying in good faith compliance with the provisions” of the act. The act is emphatic that it is not mandatory for a health care provider to prescribe aid in dying medications if requested. Everything in the act is based upon the free and voluntary decisions of all parties involved.
This has nothing to do with “death panels,” with thinning out the herd, so to speak, of “problematic” old people, or any other of the creepy arguments against the act.
As a person in his 80th year, I would feel far safer, more secure and confident in the future knowing that the Elizabeth Whitefield End of Life Options Act had been signed into law in New Mexico and that my beloved state was among those enlightened entities that honored an individual’s free will to make the ultimate decisions about her life and death.
*Nullius in verba: take nobody’s word for it
Thank you, V. B., for this profound column. This little talked about issue is one of our most important. States that have adopted some version of a right-to-die law have not seen an increase in the suicide rate, nor have they been plagued by the so-called “death panels”… only new-found dignity and sense of well-being among its aged or incurably infirm citizenry and their families. It’s a strange culture that allows putting terminally ill animals out of their misery but cannot provide the same option for humans. I join you, V.B., in supporting the Elizabeth Whitefield End of Life Options Act.
Excellent column V.B., and excellent comment, Margaret. Indeed, if one looks at the decades-old dialogue and debate surrounding the issue of patients’ rights to forgo life sustaining treatments, the expressed values and fears, the rhetoric, the opponents, are virtually identical. Yet these rights are now firmly supported in law. Perhaps even more to the point: virtually every poll in New Mexico and nationwide confirms a solid majority (over 60%) of people who support such legislation. It’s time, New Mexico.
Right again.
In Belgium we don’t pretend to define nor require “Terminal Illness” .
We honor the nature and each creature’s sense of timing.
Mr Price and friends, we invite you to take comfort in our good company.