Dr. Kevorkian, of assisted-suicide fame, was released from prison today (as I write) after serving an eight-year sentence for second-degree murder and administering controlled drugs. Yet it seems just yesterday that his how-to video made national news on 60 Minutes. Our culture condemned his actions with a conviction but fell short of imposing a lifetime behind bars. After all, the so-called victim’s family wasn’t exactly pressing charges—and he promised to steer clear of further assisted suicide cases.
Whether you respect or revile him, Kevorkian effectively strummed the exposed nerve of our culture’s ambivalence with respect to medicine and life. While abortion and capital punishment are permanent fixtures of our political lives, other life-death-medicine concerns seem to wax and wane in cycles consistent with either advocacy or emergent technology. So it is that stem cell research and Schiavo-esque issues are to this decade what assisted suicide was to the last.
At the time, Dr. Kevorkian’s cult of the catheter spawned a maelstrom of controversy based on his willingness to engage in self-sacrificing acts of civil disobedience. His subsequent imprisonment seemed to grant him indelible martyr status back then. Fast-forward less than a decade, however, and it’s clear that his imprint on our societal norms was all but scrubbed clean by his “retirement.”
Why am I addressing this issue? Surely it’s not a veterinarian’s concern.
I would agree with you but for my clients’ comments at the time of their pets’ euthanasia (an activity I attend to as often as ten times a week). In these emotional moments, a pet owner’s thoughts often stray to their own death and to what they might prefer would their own demise be in question.
Perhaps it’s rationalization (should people find themselves challenged with the guilt that can accompany pet euthanasia), but these owners frequently offer seemingly heartfelt support for a similar process in humans. It would appear they actually hope they’re loved so well as to wish someone could serve a similar role at the end of their lives. That’s not so far-fetched an assumption, is it?
I have to say that euthanasia is not an issue I’ve fully explored personally, directly and practically—for my own death (though I consider it advisable to keep a living will). But it seems that others have—based on what they say in these last minutes with their pets.
The percentage of individuals that claim to support a Kevorkian paradigm (even beyond the euphemism of “assisted suicide”) is huge if I’m to believe my own veterinary experience. Yet the American public’s acceptance of human euthanasia is reportedly very low. It’s hard for me to reconcile these two sources of information, disparate as their conclusions are.
So I’m left to wonder—What is it about animals and how we treat them that makes us think about how we would like to be treated? And is this death-bed sentiment real or simply the result of our human need for personal absolution?
Yesterday I euthanized three cats. One had painful cancer no longer amenable to drug treatment. Another was FIV positive and well into the disease’s miserable end-stage. The last was a shriveled twenty year-old who could no longer feed herself or recognize her parents. They were all perfect examples of why euthanasia is considered humane in animals.
Still, I couldn’t help but think that all three owners had waited too long to make the decision to terminate their suffering. So today, when I heard the news on Kevorkian’s release, it led me to ponder the problem of human euthanasia. I, personally, would never want to live with the pain and distress these cats suffered in their last days. And had they been humans, their lives would have certainly been prolonged for months. It’s not a concept I relish.
In my own 96 year-old grandfather’s last days, my sister (left alone while the rest of us were out of town during his emergency) fought tooth and nail to keep feeding tubes out of his body (doctors urged her to consider how he might feel as he starved to death), pleaded successfully to allow him to remain at home, and intervened (fruitlessly) with DNR paperwork when paramedics arrived to apply paddles to his cold body.
It’s amazing to me that with such respect for life, we can treat animals with such kindness but get caught up in a morass of Biblical proportions (pun intended) when it comes to our own inhuman ends.
Maybe Kevorkian wasn’t the right messenger. Maybe his methods (60 Minutes!?) were too extreme. Or maybe his timing was off by a decade or two. Whatever the case, it seems obvious that we have a long way to go in addressing human death humanely.
Add Comment6 Comments
Working as I have for the past 30+ years in the human side of medicine, and as a volunteer in a shelter and assisting our vet at times (when no "real" tech is available at our vastly underfunded facility), I have absolutely no ambivalence on the issue.
I have an advance directive (living will) for myself; but these are not absolute. In our ER we often see patients with duly notarized living wills whose families insist on overriding the wishes of the patient for whatever reason. And usually, the wishes of the family prevail; after all, it's they who sue in our litigious society. So these previously competent individuals are "successfully" resuscitated, leaving them brain-injured or vegetative; ventilator and feeding-tube dependent, to languish in the ICU and eventually a nursing home against their previously expressed wishes.
It all boils down to "quality of life", which is an individual belief. I cannot impose my feelings upon others, nor should they impose theirs upon me. My family had always discussed these beliefs freely; both of my parents were permitted to die with their dignity intact. When my mother had a massice cerebral hemorrhage which would have left her vegetative, we declined the ventilator and tubes, she died peacefully five hours later with us at bedside. When my father's cancer had filled his days with intractable pain and removed his joy in living, we all agreed to allow the natural course of dying to occur. Unfortunately, this was not a quick process; he often pleaded with us to end the pain that even massive doses of narcotics could not ease. I believe he would have opted for assisted suicide had it been available to him; I would have supported that decision.
Whatever ones feelings in the issue, it is certainly one that should be discussed in every family. I only wish that someday I would at least be afforded the option of the "good death" if I no longer found comfort or pleasure in my days, the same as I have made the gut-wrenching decision to end the suffering of my animals. Despite the emotion involved in such decisions, I have never once regretted them.
Shellie June 2nd, 2007 08:36:00 AM
I think the reason why the numbers seem so different is that humans WOULD support euthanasia, but they are concerned about the various ways euthanasia could be used in a negatively.
Okay- so that might not have made sense.
On the surface, I support euthanasia for everyone! (Yay!) IF it came down to it, yadda, yadda...
But then I start to think about human nature... You know, "Dad has a huge life insurance policy and this disease is just dragging out... Let's put him down!"
I know it sounds silly- it really does, doesn't it? But having been there with my Grandma during her last few years- if we, as a family unit, had suggested euthanasia to her and told her we thought it was a good idea- she would have accepted it, whether or not it was the RIGHT OPTION for her.
For the most part, pet owners, when they make that final decision, they are doing it with no ulterior motives. Not in every case- but in most cases.
With humans, you can never guarantee their motives and although the person requesting to be PTS would be the patient- in elderly folk, in particular, I think it would be easy for a family to influence their decision for or against.
Trish June 2nd, 2007 01:34:00 PM
I think its something we should be trying to implement. There are times in sicknesses where a person is just suffering until the end. My Grandfather was in incredible pain, began thinking we were trying to poison him etc. We did everything we could to make him comfortable, and it STILL wasn't enough. My Grandmother sat crying next to me one night, saying she wished that we could just let him go peacefully like we would our pet in the same situation. I think he would have wanted that as well.
Amanda June 2nd, 2007 04:30:00 PM
I agree with Trish. Humane euthanasia isn't the problem. It's people. Between people who would abuse it, and people who would sue, legal euthanasia will never happen. Aside from the cases of insured race horses, who aren't winning, and are murdered for the insurance money, for the most part, people who care enough to euthanise their pets have the pets best interest in mind. I can't see that happening if we legalize euthanasia. I went thru the same scenario with my parents as Shellie, and we fought tooth and nail to keep them from resuscitating my dad after he died.
Everyone doesn't have good intentions, and just about anyone will sue.
agadore's mama June 2nd, 2007 08:29:00 PM
I agree that the problem with allowing human "euthenasia" lies with humans. I am a Christian, and though my church leaders might tell me that suicide is a straight path to hell, I know in my heart that the just God that I love would not condemn me for seeking an end to pain that I can not endure. My mind, though, knows that all the reasons mentioned in previous comments are why as a society we won't accept it. The dichotomy lies in the acceptance of abortion and capital punishment, and at the same time rejecting the idea of a peceful death, held in the arms of one who loves us...such as we can offer our pets.
Mari Lynn June 2nd, 2007 09:52:00 PM
Besides the religious aspect (most religions distinguish between human life and animal life, calling prolonging human life a sacred duty regardless of pain or the individual's wishes), I agree with you completely. We should not do to humans anything we wouldn't do to our pets, and vice versa.
When my cockatiel Peeper was nearing the end of her life due to kidney failure, the vet asked me to consider euthansia. I felt it wasn't yet her time to go - she still was enjoying interacting with me and others, and was eating and drinking - and considered whether I'd accept euthanasia for a friend or family member in the same situation, and the answer was a definite "no."
zandperl June 5th, 2007 07:41:00 PM
Add Commment