$3 for 3 months. Save 90%.
$3 for 3 months. Save 90%.

The voices of the dying changed my mind: Albright

Matthew Albright
The News Journal
News Journal Engagement Editor Matthew Albright.

In the end, it was the voices of the dying that changed my mind.

I've been wrestling with my conscience over the End of Life Options Act ever since Rep. Paul Baumbach, D-Newark, announced he was sponsoring it last year. The bill would allow terminally ill patients to obtain drugs that would let them peacefully end their own lives. 

Related:I'm dying. I hope Delaware approves the End of Life Options Act

This is an issue of terrifying gravity even though it will only apply to a tiny number of people. Oregon, which has a "death with dignity" law, saw 133 people die after taking the drugs in 2016 even though it has a population more than four times larger than Delaware.

But any time we talk about ending lives, no matter how few, we must carefully balance our moral scales.

After hearing from doctors who opposed it, I was at first skeptical of this bill.

Allowing patients to kill themselves, they said, is fundamentally contrary to a doctor's oath to "do no harm." Given advances in pain management and end-of-life care, doctors should relentlessly try to improve their patients' situation, not help them end their lives, physicians argued.

Haunting questions gave me pause: What if a patient who takes these drugs could have lived? What if they were just depressed, and their minds could be changed? Could patients be talked into taking the drugs by those who could benefit financially, or those weary of caring for them?

Death is forever. How can you be certain, truly certain, that it is time to go? 

Baumbach and advocates who helped write the bill were able to somewhat blunt the power of these questions by laying out the many safeguards.

Patients would have to receive a terminal diagnosis from two separate doctors. They also would receive counseling and a mandatory presentation of end-of-life options. There are two different waiting periods.

These were reassuring, but I remained unconvinced. Then, through phone calls and emails and meetings with our editorial board, terminally ill folks began to speak for themselves.

Dying people can speak with an almost holy bluntness. They do not sugarcoat suffering; they do not hide behind euphemisms typically used when envisioning their last days. 

They will explain how their sickness is hurting them, how it is slowly but inexorably robbing them of the ability to eat, to clothe themselves, to speak.

"I am at a place where there is nothing more that can be done," wrote Ron Silverio, a former stonemason from Dover who is dying from metastatic prostate cancer. "I am physically deteriorating more and more every day. It is increasingly difficult for me to walk due to weakness and pain."

Eventually, this will not be life, so why should someone like Silverio be forced to endure it? It would comfort those with terminal illnesses to know that they could end their suffering, even if they never end up using the drug. Why should they be denied that peace of mind?

These stories carry heavy moral weight, balancing the scales against critics who can't feel their pain.

Before hearing their voices, I was certain my own religious faith and personal philosophy would prevent me from taking these drugs, even if provided the opportunity. 

But listening to them brought humility to my logic: If I were put to the test, suffering and robbed of my independence, would my judgment on this issue change?

The main point of the End of Life Options Act is that everyone should be able to make this choice for themselves. There is no decision more profoundly personal and important.

If the act passes, no one is forcing patients to take the medicine — or requiring doctors to prescribe it. It is, as the title suggests, only giving patients an option.

In other states with similar laws, many people who get the life-ending drugs end up never using them. But the comfort of knowing the option is there at the uttermost end has brought them serenity.

The arguments against this bill are powerful, and I lose zero respect for anyone who opposes it. 

But after listening to the voices of the dying, I find myself unable to tell them no.
