1
Rachel Kish
November 30, 2012
Final Research Paper for Religions in America: “Death with Dignity”
The Death with Dignity Act is a proposed law that enables an individual to end his or her
own life. This law, without a doubt, is one of the most religiously controversial in United States
history. According to Gallup’s 2011 Values and Beliefs poll found in March, “45% of
Americans consider doctor-assisted suicide morally acceptable, and 48% believe it’s morally
wrong; the split being closer than other issues such as abortion, having a child out of wedlock, or
cloning animals.” How then, does this split; represent the United States of America’s current
standings with religious culture? 1
Members on both sides of this issue have supportive causes. Those who support death
with dignity claim that the law allows terminally ill patients to “hasten an inevitable and
unavoidable death. It’s neither suicide nor euthanasia; rather, a possible option if the pain from
the underlying illness gets to be too much or quality of life too degraded.” Individuals and
groups against the law, many of whom stem from various faith traditions, deny this service on
the basis of not believing in “debating the profoundly spiritual question what is the meaning of
life.” Still, some people go back and forth between death with dignity and cannot distinguish
between the law serving as an “ultimate act of compassion or a “morally bankrupt practice.”
Five of the largest and most popular religious groups all have their own interpretations of
this recent law. According to The National Center for Death with Dignity “The Catholic Church
in Rome remains that killing of a human being, even by an act of omission to eliminate suffering,
violates divine law and offends the dignity of the human person.” The National Association of
1
Oregon Health Authority, "Death with Dignity Act." Accessed November 26, 2012.
http://public.health.oregon.gov/ProviderPartnerResources/Evaluationresearch/deathwithdignityact/Pages/index.aspx.
1
2
Evangelicals also opposes physician-assisted dying but “believes that in cases where patients are
terminally ill, death appears imminent and treatment offers no medical hope for a cure, it is
morally appropriate to request the withdrawal of life-support systems, allowing natural death to
occur. In such cases, every effort should be made to keep the patient free of pain and suffering,
offering emotional and spiritual support being provided until the patient passes.” The Union of
Orthodox Jewish Congregations in the United States has been involved in efforts within both the
Congress and courts to restrict physician assisted death. Rabbi J. David Bleich, Jewish Law
Professor at Yeshiva University stated that “Judaism places the highest importance on the
palliation of pain, particularly in the case of terminal patients,” and that “Judaism teaches that
suicide is an offense against the Deity who is the Author of life.” Those belonging to the
Mormon religion condemn euthanasia. Anyone who takes part in euthanasia, including “assisted
suicide,” is regarded as having violated the commandments of God. However, Mormons are
more liberal when it comes to the final stages of the terminally ill and have an understanding that
difficult decisions may have to be taken. Members of the Mormon Church “should not feel
obligated to extend moral life by means that are unreasonable.” Of these five religions, Muslims
are the most conservative when discussing this issue. Practicing Muslims are absolutely against
physician-assisted dying. They believe that all human life is sacred because life is given by
Allah, of whom they worship, and Allah chooses how long they each shall live.
2
In 1994, Oregon was the first state to pass the Death with Dignity Act. Oregon allows
physician-assisted suicide to take place in their state. During 1994 public discussion gave way to
the act’s 1997 implementation. The act is in relationship to health care reform under President
2
Death with Dignity National Center, "Religion and Spirituality." Last modified 2012. Accessed November 24, 2012.
http://www.deathwithdignity.org/historyfacts/religion.
2
3
Barack Obama and his administration. Oregon’s public debate underscored the conflicts among
competing religious, political, and personal interests. The state of Oregon became the beginning
mark of the current national problem of determining if and when a terminally ill person can
choose to die and whether or not “assisted-suicide” is morally right or wrong.
Under the law, a capable adult Oregon resident who has been diagnosed with a terminal
illness by a physician may request in writing, from his or her physician, a prescription for a lethal
dose of medication for the purpose of ending the patient’s life. The request must be confirmed
by two witnesses, one of whom cannot be related to the patient, be entitled to any portion of the
patient’s estate, be the patient’s physician, or be an employee of a health care facility caring for
the patient. After the request is made, another physician must examine the patient’s medical
records and confirm the diagnosis. The patient must be determined to not suffer from a mental
condition impairing judgment. If the request is authorized, the patient must wait at least fifteen
days and make a second oral request before the prescription may be written. The patient has a
right to rescind the request at any time.
3
Measure 16 is regarded as one of the most controversial ballot in Oregon’s history.
Opponents, such as the Catholic Church, feared that terminally ill people throughout the United
States would travel to Oregon to take advantage of the law, a fear that proved to be ungrounded.
Despite the legislation’s passing, implementation tied up the courts in Oregon for years. The
Oregon Legislative Assembly tried to repeal the Death with Dignity Law with some members of
Congress blocking the implementation of Measure 16, but their efforts failed.
3
Death with Dignity National Center, "Legal and Political Timeline in Oregon." Last modified 2012. Accessed November 24, 2012.
http://www.deathwithdignity.org/historyfacts/oregontimeline.
3
4
Campaign television advertisements run in Oregon commonly attacked the Catholic
Church’s active role in politics. Radio ads supported by Oregon Right to Die argued that groups
campaigning against PAS felt a “divine right” to interfere with other people’s lives and choices.
At this time, there was only a small minority of Catholic voters in Oregon. However, the
Catholic Church decided to launch a $1.5 million dollar campaign against Measure 16 (death
with dignity). The Catholic Church hoped that by emphasizing the moral and ethical problems
that they could mobilize Oregon voters to consider Measure 16 as guaranteeing patients a
“dignified death”, as its proponents claimed. Catholic Church members continued to emphasize
the moral and religious problems of the law to its Churches.
4
Proponents of the Death with Dignity Law in Oregon realized “the power of individual
anecdotes to sway public perception” would help them tackle attacks ads issued by Catholic
opponents. These anecdotes added a sympathetic, personal dimension to a procedure that was
portrayed by Catholics and other opposition groups as malicious or wrong. Proponents used
individual testimonies from people across the state of Oregon, including some medical
professionals, patients, and their families who were in support of the law.
5
“In a 1995 interview with Hospitals and Health Networks, Dr. Goodwin, a physician,
became a PAS activist after witnessing the suffering of a former patient diagnosed with
pancreatic cancer. His patient “died a horrible death, coughing his lungs out and vomiting his life
away.” It shouldn’t have to be that way.” Anecdotes had become a commonly used tool to
appeal emotionally to voters. One sixty-second television ad in support of Measure 16 featured
former nurse Patty A. Rosen of Bend, Oregon, who had told her story about seeking drugs
4
Death with Dignity National Center, Last modified 2012. Accessed November 28, 2012. deathwithdignity.org.
5
Purvis, Taylor. Yale Journal of Biology and Medicine, "Debating Death: Religion, Politics, and the Oregon Death with Dignity Act." Last
modified 2012. Accessed November 27, 2012. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3375669/.
4
5
illegally to help her daughter die: “I am a criminal,” Rosen said. “My 25-year old daughter,
Jody, was dying of bone cancer. The pain was so great that she couldn’t bear to be touched, and
drugs didn’t help…she decided she wanted to end her life…So I broke the law and got her the
pills necessary. And as she slipped peacefully away, I climbed into her bed and I took her in my
arms for the first time in months.”
The Church used its “pulpits” to urge Catholics to vote against Measure 16 and make a
political contribution to the Coalition for Compassionate Care. Archbishop William J. Levada of
the Diocese of Portland and Bishop Thomas J. Connolly of the Diocese of Baker urged priests
around the state to preach against Measure 16 and to collect donations from parishioners during
mass on Sundays. On September 18th 1994, Catholic churches statewide in Oregon held the
“Mass of Compassionate Care for the Dying” in order to emphasize the sanctity of old age and to
warn people of the threat. Church bulletin inserts, meetings, and sermons all opposing the “death
with dignity act” were ways of spreading the message throughout the dioceses.
Unfortunately for the Catholic Church, Measure 16 passed with 51% of the vote in
Oregon. “After a legal injunction and several court cases, the Act finally became law on October
27, 1997.” After this defeat, Catholic organizations and Right to Life campaigners convinced the
Oregon Medical Association to join the effort to repeal the “death with dignity” law.
Supporters of Death with Dignity were forced to mobilize voters’ support again to uphold
the 1994 law. The campaign against repeal of the Act was lead by the same pro-PAS (pass death
with dignity) groups from the previous 1994 campaign. By re-using successful media techniques
5
6
from before in combination with anti-Catholic rhetoric supporters were hopeful that the repeal of
the Act would be prevented.
6
In efforts to gain more political stamina Measure 51 opponents used rhetoric “lamenting”
the role of the Catholic Church and other religious groups in politics as a way to urge voters to
vote against the repeal. Opponents warned that the Catholic Church was using enormous
amounts of money to repeal the legislation. Critics accused the Catholic Church of imposing
their views on Oregon voters instead of letting individuals have the freedom to decide how and
when they want to end their lives. One Oregon voter described to The Oregonian his
disapproval of the Catholic Church’s political role: “Religion is fine...believe what you want to
believe. But I liked the slogan of the committee running those ads: “Don’t shove your religion
down my throat!” Supporters of Death with Dignity created informational packets urging voters
to leave religion and politics separate, as a means to keep religious and political organizations
opinions out of the end-of-life decisions. Even with the numerous negative ads and hundreds of
critics, the Catholic Church continued to be involved in the repeal of the PAS legislation and
their opponents did not cease from using additional anti-Catholic media techniques.
7
The state of Oregon received another opportunity to vote. Leaders of the Catholic
Church were ecstatic when they learned of the legislature’s decision to send the Act back to the
public for a second vote. This time, the opponents realized that increasing religious arguments
took away votes. Catholic leaders also recognized hat by engaging in religious and moral
arguments took away from all previous efforts made to keep the legislation from passing thru.
Ultimately, Measure 51 was successful. The Catholic Church’s efforts were not enough for
6
Death with Dignity National Center, "Living with Dying Blog Catholicism." Last modified 2012. Accessed November 28, 2012.
http://www.deathwithdignity.org/2011/08/09/catholicism-and-death-dignity.
7
Purvis, Taylor. Yale Journal of Biology and Medicine, "Debating Death: Religion, Politics, and the Oregon Death with Dignity Act." Last
modified 2012. Accessed November 27, 2012. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3375669/.
6
7
Oregon voters to change their minds a second time. “Oregonians decided to uphold PAS with 60
percent of the vote.”
According to the Death with Dignity National Center, “The 1994 legalization of
physician-assisted suicide in Oregon arose from a growing lack of deference to medical
authority, emphasis on patient autonomy, and increasing support of patients’ right to die.
Oregon was a prime location for the first physician-assisted suicide law, with a progressive
political history, a recent statewide health care reform bill, and a population wary of religious
influence. During the 1994 and 1997 physician-assisted suicide campaigns, organizations that
supported physician-assisted suicide appealed to voters’ desires for patient choice and control
and exploited anti-Catholic sentiment. Religious organizations that opposed the Act, including
the Catholic Church, responded by mobilizing Church members and reminding voters of the
religious and moral implications of physician-assisted suicide.”
8
Deciding for or against this piece of legislation in Oregon was difficult for people to
comprehend. This was an issue where religion was a key component and there was no middle
ground. Individuals either believed that the death with dignity act represented their right as an
American to freedom or firmly opposed the law because the idea of choosing to end one’s life, in
a religious sense, is a question of what is morally right and what is morally incorrect.
9
Just recently, the state of Massachusetts got their chance to cast their vote on the Death
with Dignity Act. The House Bill was introduced on January 24, 2011 and would allow
physician assisted suicide for qualified patients o end their lives. The legislation was similar to
Oregon’s Death with Dignity Act. The Massachusetts Joint Committee had a hearing on March
8
Death with Dignity National Center, Last modified 2012. Accessed November 28, 2012. deathwithdignity.org.
9
Helman, Scott. Boston, "Dying Wishes." Last modified 2012. Accessed November 28, 2012.
http://www.boston.com/lifestyle/articles/2012/04/29/death_with_dignity_act/.
7
8
6, 2012 and the last day that the legislative committee reported on the bill was in July of 2012.
Months later the bill was put on the ballot and weeks before the November election the Catholic
Free Press issued an article against the potential passing of the legislation within the state of
Massachusetts. “The term “death with dignity” brings with it a dark deception. We are, in fact,
being asked to vote for or against the legalization of physician-assisted suicide in our state. If
passed, a person with a prognosis of six months or less to live would be permitted by law to
request from their physician, a prescription for lethal drugs for the purpose of helping them to
end their life “in a humane and dignified manner.” 10
“The culture in which we live in has all too often dulled people’s consciences to the
reality of the true dignity and sacredness of each human life. When the value of a human life is
measured by its level of productivity, we have truly lost our way.” The Catholic Press urged its
readers to make their family and friends aware of the dangers of physician-assisted suicide. A
majority of Catholics disapproved the Act being presented to the Massachusetts government.
The Catholic Diocese in Massachusetts worked together to organize large campaigns in hopes
that voters would recognize their point of view; the legislation “violates the dignity of the dying
person and eliminates the opportunity for the many graces that can come from a “good death”
where love abounds and peace and reconciliation can flourish.” Unlike in the state of Oregon,
where the Catholic communities struggled to repeal the law, in the state of Massachusetts
Catholics succeed. On November 6 after the polls closed, question number 2 on the
10
Death with Dignity around the U.S., "Death with Dignity Around the World." Last modified 2012. Accessed November 26, 2012.
http://www.deathwithdignity.org/advocates/national.
8
9
Massachusetts State ballot was officially disbanded. Death with Dignity would not become a
law.
11
Americans over the last two decades have dealt with some extremely controversial and
pressing issues. As our country continues to expand and technology advances, there are more
options available in regards to how we develop our lifestyles. More Americans are choosing to
explore different political and religious affiliations due to the outpour of more extensive and
readily available information, as seen on the World Wide Web. People are becoming more selfsufficient in their ideologies and revamping their moral compasses.
The Death with Dignity Act allows Americans to decide how and when they die if faced
with a serious or terminal illness. Howard Ball, author of “At Liberty to Die” poses the pressing
question of whether or not “it is appropriate, legally and ethically, for a competent individual to
have the liberty” to make this kind of a decision. Similar to Roe v. Wade, Death with Dignity is
a stalemate piece of legislation. People neither want to vote yes or no because the single belief
of any America is the right to freedom. However, people of faith believe that having the right to
abort an unborn child and the right to end one’s life is extremely detrimental. Cultures do clash
when politics and religion meet because there are too many elements, opinions, and beliefs to try
and successfully comprehend without any one party being biased.
11
12
The Catholic Free Press, "Death with Dignity: Life Matters." Last modified 2012. Accessed November 28, 2012.
http://www.catholicfreepress.org/featured-article-1/2012/09/06/death-with-dignity/.
12
Ball, Howard. At Liberty To Die. New York New York: NYU Press, 2012. http://www.fromthesquare.org/?p=2613 (accessed November 28,
2012).
9