After Washington voters unwisely legalized assisted suicide, I said the battle wasn’t over. I reported that many hospitals and doctors had decided to refuse all participation in doctor prescribed death, and encouraged them to do so. That made assisted suicide advocates angry, but too bad. Nobody should be forced to participate in the intentional termination of a human life.
The non cooperation resistance strategy in Washington has been generally successful, with many medical facilities and doctors refusing to participate. That has assisted suicide advocates complaining. Most recent example: A Catholic hospital refuses to participate in any way with legalized assisted suicide–including not advising patients about their right to ask for (they don’t have a right to receive) assisted suicide. From a blog called Slog:
In 2008, nearly 58 percent of Whatcom County voters approved I-1000, the exact same margin by which the Death with Dignity initiative passed statewide. Yet two years later, terminally ill patients in Whatcom and other counties served solely by Catholic hospices, are still being denied access to information about their lawful, end of life options.
This growing conflict between the rights and wishes of patients, and the ethical and moral directives of our state’s expansive, Catholic run health systems was illustrated recently by the slow, painful death of Norman Shapiro, a patient in the care of Whatcom Hospice, a program of Bellingham’s PeaceHealth St. Joseph Medical Center, and the only home hospice provider in the county. It was only after Shapiro died from esophageal cancer in April, that his wife, Audrey Roll-Shapiro learned that our state’s Death with Dignity law would have allowed him to hasten his agonizing death by obtaining a lethal dose of medication.
How is the family’s ignorance in any way the hospice’s fault? Apparently, despite assisted suicide being against hospice philosophy and contrary to its obligation to prevent suicide,–and in the face of these hospices being Catholic, the moral teaching of which church opposes all suicide–they were supposed to tell their patients that they could decide to kill themselves. Talk about confirming their worst fears! Besides, refusing to participate in any way in assisted suicide is legal in Washington–and indeed the opt out right was created as a political tactic, assuring a wary public that dissenting medical professionals would be protected.
But assisted suicide advocates may soon insist that they refer and advise–in other words, become complicit:
Rob Miller of Compassion and Choices agrees, if in a snark-free manner. “Patients have a right to information,” Miller told me, “and all medical providers should honor the principle of informed consent by answering questions honestly, and providing referrals when necessary.” Miller isn’t advocating the elimination of the opt-out provision, but when pushed on what might be a reasonable legislative remedy, he suggested something on the lines of a “Right to Know” law that would at least require health care providers to give direct answers to direct questions.
Referring to the assisted suicide facilitating and promoting group C & C would be to abandon the patient from the hospice requirement to value their lives equally to its natural end–and indeed, would represent a profound violation of hospice methods and philosophy. Besides, how do you force speech?
Total non cooperation with assisted suicide is a powerful tool to resist doctor prescribed death where it is legal. It not only allows Hippocratic physicians and institutions to remain true to their values, but perhaps most importantly, it provides a powerful witness that assisted suicide is wrong. This is classic civil disobedience–except it isn’t disobedience. It is their right.
That could change, of course. But even if assisted suicide advocates succeed in passing laws and regulations forcing complicity in life-terminating “medical” procedures, the total non cooperation should continue as true civil disobedience. Make the state take legal action to drive Hippocratic facilities out of business. Make them destroy facilities that do so much good–as the blogger even admitted. That could actually–in true Ghandi/Martin Luther King fashion–turn the tide back to the more truly compassionate “care not killing” professional approach to treating dying patients that the Hippocratic tradition upholds.
In the meantime, good for St. Joseph’s. These days when medicine is increasingly involved in taking lives, it takes real courage to stand against the tide




October 15th, 2010 | 2:03 pm
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Vince Humphreys, Stand In The Gap and Injured Workers', Wesley J. Smith. Wesley J. Smith said: Non Cooperation With Washington-State Assisted Suicide a Success » Secondhand Smoke | A First Thin.. http://bit.ly/dArzXu [...]
October 15th, 2010 | 7:34 pm
Amen.
Just as an aside, I believe this is the first time I’ve ever seen you advocate actual civil disobedience, Wesley.
Not that this is civil disobedience _yet_, as you make quite clear. But they’re trying to force that.
And the fact that “advise and refer” has become a so-called “compromise” option in other areas could easily lead to its being thought to be oh-so-kind and such a “compromise” for the objecting healthcare facilities in this area as well.
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
October 15th, 2010 at 7:41 pm
Well, I believe in it in dire cases if it is the only thing left to do and is not violent and does not destroy property.
October 15th, 2010 | 9:34 pm
As citizens, aren’t we liable for learning the laws and etc for ourselves? Though I am a resident of Arizona, I am required to know and obey any differing traffic laws when I travel out of state, and it’s my own responsibility if I get something wrong (as in my own state of course).
Should we be required to Mirandize everyone we deal with? At work should I inform all subcontractors we deal with of their lien rights?
October 15th, 2010 | 9:37 pm
[...] First Things (blog) [...]
October 16th, 2010 | 7:27 pm
I just read the blog post. It’s darkly humorous to find the blogger saying that the hospice’s paragraph *doesn’t even* refer patients to Compassion and Choices. Well! How shocking! The Catholic hospice isn’t helping people to get in contact with the Hemlock Society. Who would have believed such a thing?
And his snark about “honesty” is just dumb. Since when does it conflict with honesty to be silent? I guess that means it’s “dishonest” to refuse to remain silent instead of answering, “Where are those Jews hidden?”
October 16th, 2010 | 7:28 pm
Sorry, that should be “to remain silent instead of answering.”
October 18th, 2010 | 8:47 pm
Wesley, I know this is like asking for a needle in a haystack, but you might know the post off the top of your head: A year or more ago I believe it was you had a post about an editorial written by a woman who was upset about the difficulty people were having in one of these states (Washington, I thought it was) finding doctors who would write lethal prescriptions. It said something to the effect that there was no point in having the law if not enough doctors would participate. Clearly advocating some way of forcing more doctors to participate. I’ve been googling for it at SHS but not coming up with it. If you happen to have the link, I’d appreciate it for a post I’m working on.
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
October 18th, 2010 at 11:03 pm
Is this the one, Lydia? http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/secondhandsmoke/2009/04/10/the-push-to-force-doctors-to-lethally-prescribe-in-washington-continues
October 19th, 2010 | 7:41 am
Yes, thanks much!
November 2nd, 2010 | 2:31 pm
A human being was allowed to die in agony when he need not have.
All the rest is sophistry and nonsense.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact