The Right to Die
Ira Byock, MD was the Director of Palliative Medicine at Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center in Lebanon, New Hampshire and is currently Professor of Anesthesiology and Community & Family Medicine at Dartmouth Medical School.
Dr. Byock has authored numerous articles on the ethics and practice of hospice, palliative and end-of-life care. His first book, Dying Well, (1997) has become a standard in the field. His most recent book, The Four Things That Matter Most, (2004) is used as a counseling tool widely by palliative care and hospice programs, as well as within pastoral care.
Dr. Byock has been a consistent advocate for the voice and rights of dying patients and their families. He has been the recipient of the National Hospice Organization’s Person of the Year (1995), the National Coalition of Cancer Survivorship’s Natalie Davis Spingarn Writers Award (2000), the American College of CHEST Physicians Roger Bone Memorial Lecture Award (2003) and the Outstanding Colleague Award (2008) of the National Association of Catholic Chaplains.
Question: Do people have the right to choose when to die?
Ira Byock: Well, I don’t know if it is an issue of right, I think they have a right to avoid any medical care they don’t want, they may have the power to die at their own choosing, but whether it is a source of human rights, it seems like that something out of the purview of my authority, and I am not even sure it’s within the purview of the construct of social authority to grant. It seems like some things are out of our hands. So the question is do people have a right to suicide? Well, maybe at some points in time, the society recognizes such a right. We don’t when – when they are not physically ill, as an emergency physician I certainly interrupted any number of attempted suicides, with societies blessing and in fact requirement, but there maybe a time when somebody is seriously ill when we recognized their right to suicide. Whether that means that physicians are legally empowered to assist in a suicide is a different question. And that’s really a question of public policy that I think often distracts us from the real issues but --
I don’t know, they certainly have the power, I can tell you that when people tell me that they are thinking about ending their life, when they are seriously ill, I used it as a clinical opportunity to explore why they feel it that their life has lost meaning and how I can assist them in improving whatever quality of life they may have, but I – it’s not a situation where I think about instituting an emergency psychiatric hold or hospitalizing them against their will. I don’t actively act to stop people from committing suicide who are, usually who are seriously ill, as I would in other circumstances. But I do talk to them about it with – I talk to people about this issue quite frequently.
Topic: The Case of Terry Schiavo
Ira Byock: I think that Schiavo case was confusing for a lot of Americans, first and foremost it was an incredible tragedy for that young women and for her family, and you got to see families struggles play out in the most obscene public way. It was just – it was just wrenching. From an ethical perspective, I think it was pretty confusing, legally clearly her husband had the right to withdraw a medically administrated nutrition and hydration, that’s really shadowed matters of ethics and law. I have to say during that time, just coincidentally there was a bill in the New Hampshire legislature to revise our advanced directive laws in New Hampshire. And some very ardent right to life communities there tried to clarify and strengthen provisions that would require – legally require medical providers to do CPR: Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation, on everyone as they were dying, unless the person themselves, the individual themselves had signed a permission not to do CPR.
And similarly to give medically administrated nutrition and hydration to everyone as they were dying, unless the person had specifically given authority in their power of attorney document to their health agents to refuse. I was testifying that that made no sense that CPR clearly at some point makes absolutely no physiologic sense, it was never designed to restart the heart of somebody who was acknowledged to be dying. And it doesn’t work anyway. And that medically administered nutrition and hydration, not uncommonly in a far advanced diseases makes things worse, imposes suffering, and actually not uncommonly will hasten a person’s death, not help them live longer because it poisons their liver, and just they can deal, their body can’t deal with the metabolites coming to it. At the same time, there was an assisted suicide bill in Vermont, and I have known to be an opponent to legalizing physician assistant suicide, very narrowly defunct. Interestingly in the same week I was getting angry letters from people in Vermont castigating me for opposing legalizing assisted suicide, and being unwilling to write lethal prescriptions when somebody was dying.
And getting angry letters from some fringe right to life extreme groups in New Hampshire, because I was allowing innocent people to die because I refused to do CPR, and refused to give them medically administered nutrition and hydration. As widely opposed, points of US possible, the only thing that connects them is a distrust of doctors and nurses and the healthcare systems in which we work. And I think if I learned anything from Schiavo, and again during that time Pope John Paul was dying, and there was really aggressive assisted suicide, things happening as well, that we have a cultural chasm in America and have no clarity about what a healthy end-of-life experience would look like, what morally acceptable end-of-life experience would look like, but we do have a distrust of doctors in the healthcare system.
Question: Why do you oppose physician assisted suicide?
Ira Byock: I opposed the legalizing of physician assisted suicide, because I believe that it’s a further distraction from the real deficiencies and dysfunctions in our healthcare system and our medical education system, that makes dying so hard in America today. It’s not because it’s controversial really that I oppose legalizing assisted suicide, I think it wouldn’t make anything better and might well make things worse. It might make things worse because it acts as a pressure valve on society from addressing some of the woeful deficiencies, and it won’t make anything better, really, if you legalize physician assisted suicide nationwide next Monday, next Tuesday we still won’t be educating physicians, medical students in how to communicate with people, give bad news, help people through the inherently difficult time of life we call dying, we won’t be educating them any more on assessing people’s pain or treating pain.
We won’t be requiring Medicare to provide hospice like coverage earlier in the course of an illness or to pay for palliative care and home care. All of those things we won’t be staffing our nursing homes any better than we did on Monday. All of those things would be left in place, and yet all of the advocates for legalizing assisted suicide, I absolutely am confident would go away, because they don’t show up for any of the other efforts that we’re trying to do to expand education and insurance coverage and staffing and nursing homes. They are not there. They have this sort of sexy fascination with preempting death. Now I have written frankly, I have been on the con side of legalizing assisted suicide for a long time but frankly in recent years, I have written strongly asserting that in the arguments and the debate over physician assisted suicide, both sides are wrong.
The assisted suicide people are wrong, the pros are wrong because frankly it wouldn’t change anything and might actually retard real progress, and the people who oppose physician assisted suicide are wrong, because they only tell us what they are against. And the catholic church which happens to have been right on this issue all along hasn’t told us the rest of the story, and they haven’t stepped up to the plate, just to tell their congregations and parishes and dioceses to show the rest of us what enlighten care looks like. If we are supposed to provide nutrition and hydration for everyone, well then show us what that looks like in a contemporary America in a way that’s enlightened, but don’t just warehouse people or tell the government it’s our responsibility, because we don’t know. So frankly even when they have been right, the church and others have looked sanctimonious, self righteous and really stingy, frankly.
And it hasn’t helped those of us, I am not Catholic but those of us who have been opposed to legalizing physician assisted suicide for clinical and ethical and really social reasons. It hasn’t helped us make our case because by implication we sound sanctimonious, which frankly is not where we are coming from. I am a lifelong political progressive and proud to be. I don’t see legalizing assisted suicide add some extension of our personal freedoms, I think it’s a regression and apology for a failed social policy and failed healthcare policy. And unless or until we can really as a culture and society take good care of our grand parents and our parents and our brothers and sisters and our children during this time of life we call dying, we really haven’t married [phonetic] the right to even have the discussion of preempting that.
Recorded on: March 21, 2008
The Right to Die
Once a week.
Subscribe to our weekly newsletter.
What is human dignity? Here's a primer, told through 200 years of great essays, lectures, and novels.
- Human dignity means that each of our lives have an unimpeachable value simply because we are human, and therefore we are deserving of a baseline level of respect.
- That baseline requires more than the absence of violence, discrimination, and authoritarianism. It means giving individuals the freedom to pursue their own happiness and purpose.
- We look at incredible writings from the last 200 years that illustrate the push for human dignity in regards to slavery, equality, communism, free speech and education.
The inherent worth of all human beings<p>Human dignity is the inherent worth of each individual human being. Recognizing human dignity means respecting human beings' special value—value that sets us apart from other animals; value that is intrinsic and cannot be lost.</p> <p>Liberalism—the broad political philosophy that organizes society around liberty, justice, and equality—is rooted in the idea of human dignity. Liberalism assumes each of our lives, plans, and preferences have some unimpeachable value, not because of any objective evaluation or contribution to a greater good, but simply because they belong to a human being. We are human, and therefore deserving of a baseline level of respect. </p> <p>Because so many of us take human dignity for granted—just a fact of our humanness—it's usually only when someone's dignity is ignored or violated that we feel compelled to talk about it. </p> <p>But human dignity means more than the absence of violence, discrimination, and authoritarianism. It means giving individuals the freedom to pursue their own happiness and purpose—a freedom that can be hampered by restrictive social institutions or the tyranny of the majority. The liberal ideal of the good society is not just peaceful but also pluralistic: It is a society in which we respect others' right to think and live differently than we do.</p>
From the 19th century to today<p>With <a href="https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?year_start=1800&year_end=2019&content=human+dignity&corpus=26&smoothing=3&direct_url=t1%3B%2Chuman%20dignity%3B%2Cc0" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Google Books Ngram Viewer</a>, we can chart mentions of human dignity from 1800-2019.</p><img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yNDg0ODU0My9vcmlnaW4ucG5nIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTY1MTUwMzE4MX0.bu0D_0uQuyNLyJjfRESNhu7twkJ5nxu8pQtfa1w3hZs/img.png?width=980" id="7ef38" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="9974c7bef3812fcb36858f325889e3c6" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" />
American novelist, writer, playwright, poet, essayist and civil rights activist James Baldwin at his home in Saint-Paul-de-Vence, southern France, on November 6, 1979.
Credit: Ralph Gatti/AFP via Getty Images
The future of dignity<p>Around the world, people are still working toward the full and equal recognition of human dignity. Every year, new speeches and writings help us understand what dignity is—not only what it looks like when dignity is violated but also what it looks like when dignity is honored. In his posthumous essay, Congressman Lewis wrote, "When historians pick up their pens to write the story of the 21st century, let them say that it was your generation who laid down the heavy burdens of hate at last and that peace finally triumphed over violence, aggression and war."</p> <p>The more we talk about human dignity, the better we understand it. And the sooner we can make progress toward a shared vision of peace, freedom, and mutual respect for all. </p>
A new study shows our planet is much closer to the supermassive black hole at the galaxy's center than previously estimated.
Arrows on this map show position and velocity data for the 224 objects utilized to model the Milky Way Galaxy. The solid black lines point to the positions of the spiral arms of the Galaxy. Colors reflect groups of objects that are part of the same arm, while the background is a simulation image.
Apple sold its first iPod in 2001, and six years later it introduced the iPhone, which ushered in a new era of personal technology.
With just a few strategical tweaks, the Nazis could have won one of World War II's most decisive battles.
- The Battle of Britain is widely recognized as one of the most significant battles that occurred during World War II. It marked the first major victory of the Allied forces and shifted the tide of the war.
- Historians, however, have long debated the deciding factor in the British victory and German defeat.
- A new mathematical model took into account numerous alternative tactics that the German's could have made and found that just two tweaks stood between them and victory over Britain.
Two strategic blunders<p>Now, historians and mathematicians from York St. John University have collaborated to produce <a href="http://www-users.york.ac.uk/~nm15/bootstrapBoB%20AAMS.docx" target="_blank">a statistical model (docx download)</a> capable of calculating what the likely outcomes of the Battle of Britain would have been had the circumstances been different. </p><p>Would the German war effort have fared better had they not bombed Britain at all? What if Hitler had begun his bombing campaign earlier, even by just a few weeks? What if they had focused their targets on RAF airfields for the entire course of the battle? Using a statistical technique called weighted bootstrapping, the researchers studied these and other alternatives.</p><p>"The weighted bootstrap technique allowed us to model alternative campaigns in which the Luftwaffe prolongs or contracts the different phases of the battle and varies its targets," said co-author Dr. Jaime Wood in a <a href="https://www.york.ac.uk/news-and-events/news/2020/research/mathematicians-battle-britain-what-if-scenarios/" target="_blank">statement</a>. Based on the different strategic decisions that the German forces could have made, the researchers' model enabled them to predict the likelihood that the events of a given day of fighting would or would not occur.</p><p>"The Luftwaffe would only have been able to make the necessary bases in France available to launch an air attack on Britain in June at the earliest, so our alternative campaign brings forward the air campaign by three weeks," continued Wood. "We tested the impact of this and the other counterfactuals by varying the probabilities with which we choose individual days."</p><p>Ultimately, two strategic tweaks shifted the odds significantly towards the Germans' favor. Had the German forces started their campaign earlier in the year and had they consistently targeted RAF airfields, an Allied victory would have been extremely unlikely.</p><p>Say the odds of a British victory in the real-world Battle of Britain stood at 50-50 (there's no real way of knowing what the actual odds are, so we'll just have to select an arbitrary figure). If this were the case, changing the start date of the campaign and focusing only on airfields would have reduced British chances at victory to just 10 percent. Even if a British victory stood at 98 percent, these changes would have cut them down to just 34 percent.</p>
A tool for understanding history<p>This technique, said co-author Niall Mackay, "demonstrates just how finely-balanced the outcomes of some of the biggest moments of history were. Even when we use the actual days' events of the battle, make a small change of timing or emphasis to the arrangement of those days and things might have turned out very differently."</p><p>The researchers also claimed that their technique could be applied to other uncertain historical events. "Weighted bootstrapping can provide a natural and intuitive tool for historians to investigate unrealized possibilities, informing historical controversies and debates," said Mackay.</p><p>Using this technique, researchers can evaluate other what-ifs and gain insight into how differently influential events could have turned out if only the slightest things had changed. For now, at least, we can all be thankful that Hitler underestimated Britain's grit.</p>
A biologist-reporter investigates his fungal namesake.
The unmatched biologist-reporter Tomasz Sitarz interviews his fungal namesake, maślak sitarz – known in English as the Jersey cow mushroom.