Miriam Bribiesca: Spillover effect of assisted suicide bill must be considered

This week, despite large opposition from the religious public, Gov. Jerry Brown signed the bill that would enact the End of Life Option Act. This bill approves assisted suicide by allowing doctors to prescribe lethal doses to patients who are expected to live six months or less. The governor assured that the approval of this bill was the right thing for people who are suffering, as it would provide them with a potentially comforting option in the face of near-certain death.

Supporters of the bill argue that assisted suicide can relieve people from their suffering as well as give them the option to act privately and without any intrusion in the comfort of their homes. While all these things are right and legitimate points to support the passage of the law, there is one concern that has been overlooked. There has been little discussion about a possible spillover effect that can push individuals who do not have access to medical care or are not given the approval to take matters into their own hands.

Therefore, what is bittersweet about this bill is not that it allows people to die with dignity in their last days, but the fact that suicide becomes justified. This could cloud the discussion about suicide in general.

As stated in an article published by The Atlantic, request for assisted suicide is usually not done by those in pain but by those who are in physiological and psychological distress. The misconception of pain as being a major factor of requesting assisted suicide turns into a misleading idea that portrays suicide as the best solution to unbearable pain.

However, this is not the case. A majority of assisted suicide requests come from people with psychological distress. Therefore, the bill could encourage people who perceive themselves as incurable – whether due to a physical disorder or mental illness – to act on their thoughts and commit suicide after seeing the approval of the greater society.

That means this bill misses a huge target that could possibly affect thousands of people. Those with chronic depression or mental illness could take societal cues that it is OK to end your life if you feel incurable, even if this is not the case.

Supporters of the bill will contend that there has been little evidence of this kind of spillover effect. However, this can be hard to quantify – after all, most people who take their lives don’t leave intricate details on the pressures that led them to do this.

Proponents are right to argue that people deserve to die with dignity. However, it’s important to weigh the cost of this against the potential signals we are sending to those who may take this idea in the wrong way. For example, even though Oregon has had this law for over 10 years, it has rarely been used.

Therefore, there is a space for contention. We can measure how many people are using assisted suicide – which isn’t many, evidently – but we can’t measure the people who are taking cues from the legalization of this law and choosing to end their own lives.

Whether or not this law is actually used by Californians in the upcoming years, the efforts should now be moved to promote and educate the population about the true reasons behind assisted suicide.

Everyone has a right to die with dignity. But without expanding the scope of our thinking, we may be missing out on the opportunity to help a lot of other people.