COMS 321 – Rhetorical Discourse
18 Jun 2015
DESCRIPTIVE ANALYSIS: LET’S CALL PHYSICIAN-ASSISTED SUICIDE WHAT IT IS
I have conducted a descriptive analysis from an article written by Karin Klein, Editorial Writer of the Los Angeles Times, published on February 17, 2015. Klein tackled the topic “Let’s call physician-assisted suicide what it is”. The newly written Senate Bill (SB) 128 would “allow physicians in California to write lethal prescriptions under tightly controlled circumstances” for the terminally ill but will not call it as “suicide” nor will it be reflected as such on death certificates. Klein’s editorial is focused on the these two major flaws of the bill written for the terminally ill who are looking for a dignified way to end their life by allowing them access to lethal prescription drugs if the bill is passed. The bill is mirrored after the State of Oregon’s Death with Dignity Act law passed by its legislature in 1997. Klein’s purpose, at the time of her writing the editorial, was to reach out to the legislators and advocates of the bill, her audience, to modify the bill by naming it as it is, “a physician-assisted suicide” and reflecting it as such in death certificates. The tone and approach to her writing was straight to the point while at times satirical, stretching how the definition of “suicide” can have a different connotation in the eyes and perspectives of the advocates of the bill. Klein seeks to appeal to the writers and proponents of the right-to-die movement to make this change regardless of the argument that undermines a physician’s Hippocratic Oath which is to preserve life and not end it. Klein, clearly supports the right of the terminally ill in making their own decisions about “how and when to meet death” but asserts to modify the bill.
Klein’s purpose, at the time of her writing the editorial, strongly appeals to the readers and targeted California legislators and advocates alike, to change the language of the bill by calling it as it is, ”a physician-assisted suicide”. She further examines that the word “suicide” carries a stigma and the proponents of the bill are adamantly evading the “S” word in this context, where “people would not be choosing this option because of a psychiatric disorder or despair over life. They don’t want to die: their diseases have forced that on them.” Thus, advocates argue that calling it suicide, where death is ultimately inevitable, does not merit calling it as such. Klein adopted the persona of a concerned citizen and a responsible reporter by reaching out to the authors of the bill to remove the jargons, stating that “I am also an advocate of facts - not distorting the wording on public documents so that they will forever tell a false story of the cause of death”. Klein wants transparency in the bill by documenting the cause of death from prescribed lethal prescriptions and declare the actual cause of death on the death certificate as a “physician-assisted suicide”. By rightfully doing so, public records will forever be accurate and the true cause of death is truthfully documented. Klein’s tone towards the issue and her audience is satirical stating that the word “suicide” carries a stigma and that the resolution is to remove it by creating a “justifiable suicide” category just as there is a “justifiable homicide”. She further sarcastically questions why the other means to end life by a terminally ill person is considered suicide while a “physician-assisted suicide” does not connote the same thing. She establishes a double-standard in the bill and is attempting to garner attention from her readers, targeting the advocates and legislators to make the change. Klein’s writing structure is right on point focusing on the results that she is pushing for by outright appealing to the readers and the very same advocates and legislators who are pushing for the bill. The title “Let’s call physician-assisted suicide what it is” says it all with a no-holds -barred approach in outright declaring her opinion in the editorial title to catch reader’s attention. Klein further expressed the stigma the “suicide” word brings about that is so highly scrutinized by the proponents of the bill. Klein pointed out coming up with a different category to appease her motive by suggesting to create category for a “justifiable suicide” just as there is a “justifiable homicide”, being very blunt about the true definition of the “S” word no matter how much the right-to-die movement would like to evade the actual word. Klein sarcastically questioned why “physician-assisted suicide is not considered suicide by advocates and legislators but the terminally ill who chooses other methods of dying would be considered so?
Klein also provided supporting materials by first citing a specific lawsuit specifying that the lethal prescription used in physician-assisted suicide in Oregon is already available and legalized here in California, even without a new law. However, the debate is whether to allow the terminally ill access to such prescription and under tightly controlled circumstances here in California. The arguments and controversial positions on this topic can be based on many important aspects of civility: the law, religion or spiritual beliefs, morals, and ethics. Opinions vary based on personal experiences, belief systems, age, culture and other aspects of humankind that influence how we think about the important aspects of life.
There are a few strategies and arguments surrounding SB 128, which primarily is of compassion to the terminally ill, to garner support even to those who are opposed to it. The issues about health and medical care are so divisive as whether or not the terminally ill should have the right to die when they choose, intentionally, by their own hand, to end their suffering and pain. What took my interest in this article and the new bill is the reason behind the push for this legislation in California after the much publicized and followed life of Brittany Maynard in social media with her battle with stage four brain cancer and her physician-assisted suicide in 2014. The strategy is of compassion by the proponents of the bill, while it is morality by its opponents. Maynard’s People magazine statement on October 6, 2014, along with others’ personal testimonies, were enough to sway opposing California politicians today to pass this through the Senate floor. The compassionate statement made by Maynard drew more interest by Californians on the Oregon law in which she stated: “There is not a cell in my body that is suicidal or that wants to die. I want to live. I wish there was a cure for my disease but there’s not…My glioblastoma is going to kill me, and that’s out of my control. I’ve discussed with many experts how I would die from it, and it’s a terrible, terrible way to die. Being able to choose to go with dignity is less terrifying…Right now it’s a choice that is only available to some Americans, which is really unethical…The amount of sacrifice and change my family had to go through in order to get me legal access to Death with Dignity—changing our residency from California to Oregon, establishing a team of doctors, having a place to live---was profound…There’s tons of Americans who don’t have time or the ability or finances to move to a legal state and I don’t think that’s right or fair…I believe this choice is ethical, and what makes it ethical is it is a choice. The patient can change their mind up to the last minute. I feel very protected here in Oregon.”
Opponents of SB 128 argue that this bill is a way to legalize suicide on the physician’s role of prescribing the lethal drug that would ultimately end someone’s suffering and not from the terminal illness itself. Additionally, there is also the debate on the possibility of the law to be abused by intentionally ending a terminally ill person’s life under the protections of the law. The avoidance of the term “suicide”, when it is one person’s will to end their life is nonetheless what it meant regardless whether death is inevitable as a result of a terminal illness. Finally, the passing of this bill will be a turning point for others prosecuted and imprisoned in the past, who practiced what used to be considered a “criminal act” which is now defined under SB 128 as “a compassionate bill” towards the terminally ill.
My conclusion of the issues raised and argued by Klein, is that SB 128 should be truthful, transparent, and void of any malice to intentionally and purposely cover up the real reason and cause of death for the terminally ill who will choose to end their life with the aid of a legally prescribed lethal prescription. Klein satirically and firmly appeals to her readers as her audience, and voiced out her opinion as a concerned citizen and responsible reporter to call ”physician-assisted suicide” as it is and remove its jargon by stretching its definition to evade the “S” word. She wants to forthright declare it as it is in death certificates of those who will choose this path if and when this bill is officially passed by legislation.