A lot can be made of a new Gallop Poll about assisted suicide and euthanasia. When asked if assisted suicide is morally acceptable, 48% say yes and 44% say no. That is very close to the AP poll I posted about the other day.
Then Gallop asks a question which seems to me intended to heighten the “yes” response:“When a person has a disease that cannot be cured and is living in severe pain, do you think doctors should or should not be allowed by law to assist the patient to commit suicide if the patient requests it?”
The response is 56-38%—much lower than the high 60% we often see in polls. But note the following: First, the poll uses the “sever pain” comment, a sure fire way to increase support. Second, it is almost always a false premise, since almost all pain can be at least alleviated to some degree. Third, no legislation in the United States requires that a suicidal patient be in severe pain to qualify for assisted suicide. Fourth, note that under the poll, the disease need not be terminal, but incurable, which means that diseases such as arthritis would qualify. I will bet the poll numbers would change with more accurate questions.
And here’s an interesting note. The poll also asked, apparently about euthanasia:
“When a person has a disease that cannot be cured, do you think doctors should be allowed by law to end the patient’s life by some painless means if the patient and his or her family requestA whopping 71% say yes and 29% no. Assisted suicide advocates used to promote active euthanasia, but having lost two initiatives in Washington (1991) and California (1992), they took a step back to move the agenda forward by not permitting doctors to lethally inject, and carried the day in Oregon (1994). Since then, the entire advocacy in the USA has been for assisted suicide. (Belgium has since legalized active euthanasia.)it?”
What can we make of this question? First, I think the authority of the doctor moves these numbers. Second, the question is vague about what it means to end a life—it could be interpreted as removing from life support. I daresay that had the term killing been used, the yes response would have plummeted. Third, note that this question wasn’t about “choice” at all but killing as a response to human suffering, with families having the right to make the decision.
In summary: Support for assisted suicide generally is lower than it has been in the past. The poll is terribly written and seems designed to get a certain response, or is sufficiently vague that people can read into what is meant by the question. And it demonstrates the principle about how the slippery slope can really take off once the premises of euthanasia advocacy are accepted.
Bottom line: Assisted suicide is a priority issue for a small, energetic group of activists. If it were an important issue for people that drove voting patterns, politicians would be running on the promise to legalize it, and very few do. However, due to the partisan differences found in the poll, there is a danger that legalization could come to be seen as just another in a series of “progressive” agenda items—although in my view, it is just the opposite—and could one day be accepted by the Democratic Party in its plank. That is one place where disability rights activists, who are generally considered a Democratic Party constituency, have provided a profound public service by standing athwart the euthanasia/assisted suicide agenda.
