New York Times health columnist Jane Brody has written a a poignant personal essay advocating the need for choice at the end of life. Brody cites the story of her high school biology teacher, who at 94 asks her to help him hasten his death. She abstains, but contemplates why someone could not take life-ending medication to peacefully achieve an end to suffering. She thinks about her mother, who attempted to hasten her death without the aid of a physician. Her mother’s life was saved, but Brody asks herself, saved for what? And she cites Dr. Timothy Quill’s experience, who wrote about his role in his father’s experience with aid in dying. Brody weaves these examples into a thoughtful commentary about what to do when the cost of living outweighs the benefits. At that point, she says, she will be ready to go. She asks that her loved ones will support her when she does. Read the column

The American Medical Women’s Association has issued a position statement in support of physician aid in dying, stepping forward as a leader among national medical organizations in the arena of end-of-life choice. After careful review of a decade of experience in Oregon, AMWA concluded, as have many outside observers, that the availability of aid in dying has posed no harm to patients, vulnerable populations or physicians. The group determined that terminally ill, mentally competent patients have the right to hasten what could otherwise be an undignified, prolonged or extremely painful death. Doctors who agree with the practice should have the right to provide such a patient with the means and/or knowledge to use medication to hasten death.

The organization also strongly supports the use of palliative and hospice
care for patients who are terminally ill.

Click here to view policy statement.

A new study in the Journal of Medical Ethics found physician aid in dying  does not lead to a “slippery slope” of more vulnerable populations participating in the law. The neutral experts' study debunks false claims by opponents of terminal patient choice.

The study drew from the experiences in Oregon and the Netherlands, where the practice is legal. It was conducted by a neutral group of experts who scrupulously and objectively looked at available data. The five experts, whose personal views varied on physician aid in dying, all found the law made no disproportionate impact on disabled people and other at-risk groups.

Researchers examined those populations considered “vulnerable” – including  the elderly, women, uninsured, poor, people with AIDS, those with low educational status, racial and ethnic minorities and those with nonterminal physical disabilities or chronic non-terminal illness. The results are significant because opponents of aid in dying often express concern about potential for abuse, and that legalized aid in dying would  unfairly target more susceptible populations.

“For 10 years, opponents desperate to discredit a compassionate, rational  approach to end of life choices have claimed that terminal patients will be coerced or pressured into hastening their deaths,” said Dr. Bob Brody, clinical professor of medicine, family and community medicine at the University of California at San Francisco and a leader of Californians for Compassionate Choices. “This latest study is another in a long line of independent investigations that show that Oregon’s aid in dying law is working as intended, and that opponents’ claims are not based on fact.