So many thoughts on this article. Sorry for the long post.
"I wanted to clear up the internal conflicts I had about balancing individual rights and our society's duty to care for its members." -- I don't perceive a "balance" here at all. Countless large studies have consistently shown the vulnerable in the US are preyed upon by the wealthy/powerful (source of profits), politicians and members of the courts (who are slow to protect the vulnerable poor and fail to enforce laws begrudgingly enacted to pay lip service to justice; meanwhile, the poor get little competent and effective legal aid because they're poor), and by one another (dog-eat-dog world). Just a few examples. Those who have enough wealth or know the right people (social capital) may enjoy some preservation of individual rights. But "duty to care"? Far too often, just words.
"Americans are not good at dying. We are good at charging exorbitant amounts for end-of-life care..." The god of America (most countries?) is money. Dying people can be preyed upon to drive profits. Actual caring for people--the vulnerable--not so much. Which is why social workers, home care aides, and many other community advocates are both payed relatively little and enjoy so little professional respect despite the urgency of their work.
"The disability rights movement is stridently opposed to any form of physician-assisted death...They say that, until we have a better social safety net, there will be people who decide to die, not because it is their time but because they cannot afford to live decently." -- Suicide rates among the homeless, some studies show, reach ten times that of the general population. Life expectancy among the poor and vulnerable is considerably lower than that among the wealthy. Landmark research out of think-tanks like Dartmouth's Health Policy Center repeatedly finds that zip code (proxy for wealth and power) predicts mortality rates, patient-provider dynamics, and objective quality of health care. If the powerful among us wanted to address these disparities, we'd have already done it. Enough Americans--including politicians--don't want to. In the meantime, many of the most vulnerable live turbulent, emotionally excruciating, physically harrowing lives. We shouldn't have to sit and wait (what, 100 years?) to see if the rest of society eventually demands the systemic changes researchers disclose would save lives (like housing first initiatives that show remarkable efficacy addressing drug addiction, recidivism, and even suicidal ideation).
"In recent years, in response to the opioid epidemic, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has been cracking down on the prescription of pain medication..." -- Yes, many decades-long sufferers of debilitating, incessant pain have had their pain support cut immediately with no viable alternatives offered. They're acceptable casualties in the prescription drug abuse war because they're disproportionately poor and vulnerable. According to the American Academy of Pain Management, the goal of pain management is NOT the elimination of pain--or even the satisfactory reduction of pain. It's getting people back to work, to participating in daily life that benefits the rest of us ("improved functioning"). Still in pain? Too bad. You have no/few rights to medically-competent suicide.
I realize A LOT of people disagree with me, consider me hyper-negative. That's OK. But given we either can't or don't want to end others' suffering, they shouldn't have to drown daily in emotional and physical pain. Each of us should be entitled to decide how much of the game of life we want to play. Otherwise, we're the property of the state and life is a cosmic onus. Good luck if you're also vulnerable since it's just not profitable to influential advocates to care about you.
www.aljazeera.com
