The Catholic Sun recently interviewed Jessica Rodgers, coalition director for the Patients’ Rights Action Fund (PRAF), a national organization based in New York City, about the legal and moral concerns surrounding New York state’s Medical Aid in Dying Act (MAiD), commonly known as physician-assisted suicide. Rodgers was the main speaker at the annual March for Life in downtown Syracuse, held Jan. 17.
Q. What are your responsibilities as the coalition director for PRAF?
A: My work is focused on coalition-building and bringing together the very different stakeholders on this issue. Opposition to assisted suicide crosses the typical political lines, with opposition from both conservative and progressive voices.
Q: What worries you most about how this law could affect the elderly, the disabled, and all vulnerable people?
A: In practical application, assisted suicide is available to those with treatable conditions that could result in death without that treatment. For example, diabetes has been listed as a qualifying condition. When treated properly, it should not be considered terminal, but if you can’t access or afford your insulin, suddenly it can be cheaper to get lethal drugs than wanted and needed treatment. In Oregon, we’ve seen a growing number of patients citing “financial implications of treatment” as a reason for their request, so we know, without doubt, that patients are actively factoring in their finances when they make a life or death decision.
Q: How could subtle pressure – from family, insurers, or the healthcare system – affect a patient’s “choice”?
A: Choice doesn’t exist in a vacuum. Illness is hard on the entire family – no one wants to be sick or watch their loved one be sick. While it is an inevitability in life, it is not one that anyone wishes for. But when assisted suicide is suddenly on the table, the ill person is no longer just at the center of inevitable tragedy; they become the cause of the hardship, because they could just “choose” to not be here any longer. These implicit pressures are felt whenever family plans have to adjust to account for doctors visits, or mounting medical bills are paid instead of leaving a larger inheritance. Even in the best situations where there is no overt pressure, there is no telling the inner turmoil that accompanies those who qualify for assisted suicide, particularly when it is a much cheaper cost than continued end of life care.
As one example, Stephanie Packer in California was told that her insurance company would cover the treatment recommended by her doctor … until the California End of Life Options Act went into effect. Then, suddenly, it wasn’t covered any longer. When she inquired, they acknowledged that lethal drugs under the new law would be available for just a $1.20 copay.
Q: In what ways can we stop the same slippery slopes from happening in NYS?
A: Doctors and systems can opt-out of participating; and they SHOULD. New Yorkers should call their doctors offices and make it clear that they will not see a doctor they cannot trust, and they will not be part of a practice that prescribes lethal drugs. And, keep an eye on the legislature – in New York, make sure you’re on the mailing list for the New York Alliance Against Assisted Suicide. That will be the best way to know New York-specific action when expansions are inevitably introduced. For staying up to date on New York and more broadly in the US, you can join the PRAF mailing list at www.patientsrightsaction.org.
Q: How do you believe this law would change the role of physicians and the doctor-patient relationship?
A: Assisted suicide erodes that trust between doctors and patients. How could it not? How can you trust that your doctor would fight for you if they would, in the same visit, write a prescription for you to die by suicide? The American Medical Association calls assisted suicide “fundamentally incompatible with the physician’s role as healer.” At its heart, assisted suicide forces participants to ask “who has a life worth saving and who doesn’t.” How can any patient feel safe with a doctor who makes this kind of a judgement call?
Q: How do you respond to claims that opposing this bill denies patients compassion or dignity?
A: Dignity is inherent and cannot be stripped away regardless of what illness brings. Offering suicide on demand as a state policy for only those with life-threatening disabilities is in no way compassionate, and instead views the lives of others as commodities. Assisted suicide builds a dangerous two-tiered system where some people will express suicidal ideation to their doctor and get appropriate treatment and support, and others will receive lethal drugs. This discrimination is antithetical to human dignity.
Q: Is there still hope that the Medical Aid in Dying Act can be vetoed?
A: The governor has not yet signed it; the new bill incorporating her changes was introduced and will work its way through the legislature pretty quickly. While there is always room for her to change her mind, and people should absolutely contact their legislators and tell them they don’t support this, I do think it’s clear that she plans to sign the bill.
