Data Bits
"Data Bit" was a feature that appeared in Free To Go, the cooperatively-produced newsletter of Canada's anglophone right-to-die groups, from issue 6:1 (Jan.-Mar. 2004) until issue 10:4 (Oct.-Dec. 2008). It continued in the Right to Die Society of Canada Newsletter, which ran from Jan. 2009 till Dec. 2017.
RTDSC Newsletter 4:1-2
The number: 4%
What it is:
60% minus 56%. In a survey of1669 California adults, 60% of respondents said it was “extremely important” to make sure their families weren’t burdened by tough decisions about their care, but 56% had not expressed their wishes to the person who would be making those decisions.
Discussion:
The person with the wishes may not be solely responsible for the disconnect. Spouses or offspring or
other potential proxies may have deflected attempts to start a just-so-you-know conversation, in a misguided effort to spare the “worrier”. The situation often calls for persistence or even a bit of craftiness.
When published:
February 14, 2012 (Valentine’s Day!) in San Francisco Chronicle
Issue 10:4 (Oct. - Dec. 2008)
The number: 33%
What it is:
Among people aged 55 and up, this many believed they had a legal right to an assisted death, in a poll commissioned by the UK group Dignity in Dying. 67% of the 1017 respondents also believed they had a right to hospice care, and 56% thought they had a right to die in a place of their choosing.
Discussion:
When something strikes people as obviously right and just, they may assume that their country's "justice" system sees things the same way. This explains the openness sometimes displayed by people who have helped a sufferer to escape from a life which had become a curse rather than a blessing.
When published:
October 7, 2008 on www.ukpress.com
Issue 10:3 (Jul. - Sep. 2008)
The number: 45%
What it is:
The level of agreement with a statement that the medical profession should support euthanasia and lobby the government to legalise it, among almost 1800 doctors in the Australian state of Victoria.
Discussion:
Among the same group of doctors, 44% disagreed with the statement. However, 78% of over 900 Victoria nurses who responded to a survey in the early 1990s thought the law should be changed to allow doctors to take active steps to bring about a patient's death under some circumstances. (Intl. J. Nursing Studies 1993 v.30 n.4 pp.311-322)
When published:
July 16, 2008 in the Melbourne Herald Sun (the Sun conducted the poll).
Issue 10:2 (Apr.-Jun. 2008)
The number: 35%
What it is:
The level of fear about dying alone, among 2000 respondents to a poll commissioned by the UK group Dignity in Dying. Respondents were asked to say which of several situations they feared the most, and a lonely death was by far the commonest "Number One Fear".
Discussion:
The laws in places like Oregon and the Benelux countries, and the policies of organizations like Dignitas and Final Exit Network, have several obvious benefits - you suffer less, you are not humiliated, you stay in control. But people also appreciate tremendously the fact that you can be "among friends" even if you are active rather than passive about your dying.
When published:
May 27, 2008 in Sunderland Echo.
Issue 10:1 (Jan.-Mar. 2008)
The number: 63%
What it is:
The level of support, among respondents to a poll by the Dutch TV program Rondom 10, for extending aid in dying to old people who feel that their life is complete and death is the logical next step.
Discussion:
On March 19 Femke Halsema, leader of the GroenLinks party, announced that she agreed with the 63%. She planned to raise the issue during that day's debate on euthanasia in the Volksrant.
When published:
March 20, 2008 in Dutch News (online).
Issue 9:1 (Jan.-Mar. 2007)
The number: 40 million
What it is:
The approximate number of Americans using a doctor who
does not feel obligated to inform patients about treatment options (such
as terminal sedation) which conflict with his or her personal moral code.
In a survey of US doctors (sample size 1144) 14% of the
respondents did not agree that when doctors object to a particular treatment
they still must include that treatment among the options they present
to the patient – 8% said they definitely disagreed, and 6% were undecided.
Discussion:
Two relevant quotations --
(1) "You better darn well believe I want to impose my morality on
these people."
(California politician Anthony Adams, explaining his opposition to a choice-in-dying
bill being considered in his state)
(2) "If people are not prepared to offer legally permitted, efficient
and beneficial care to a patient because it conflicts with their values,
they should not be doctors."
(Medical ethicist Julian Savuescu, writing in the British Medical Journal
in 2006)
When published:
February 8, 2007 (in New England Journal of Medicine vol. 356, no. 6, pages
593-600)
Issue 8:2 (Apr.-Jun. 2006)
The number: 11 percentage points
What it is:
The margin by which support for euthanasia exceeds support for assisted
suicide, among Americans polled by Gallup from 2003 until 2006. (69% supported
"doctor ending patient's life by painless means"; 58% supported
"doctor assisting patient to commit suicide".)
Comment:
In English-speaking countries at least, the (potential)
service providers – namely doctors – usually consider assisted suicide
preferable to euthanasia. But the (potential) service consumers reverse
that ranking. Laypeople probably view euthanasia as just one more occasion
on which their doctor "takes care of them". The hope of being
able to get such care can be quite strong, perhaps strong enough to interfere
with reading ability: a 2000 survey of Oregon residents found that most
believed the law they had recently voted for would allow them to receive
not only assisted suicide but also euthanasia – only 32% were aware that
lethal injection was still prohibited. (This survey was reported in the
November 15 2000 issue of JAMA [Journal of the American Medical Association].)
When published:
June 19, 2006
Issue 7:4 (Oct.-Dec. 2005)
The number: 62%
What it is:
Out of 677 American doctors polled in October by HCD Research, this many
believe that physicians should be permitted to dispense life-ending drugs
to terminally ill patients who have made a rational decision to die due
to unbearable suffering.
Comment:
"Although the high percentage of physicians who support the ability
to prescribe such medications may be somewhat surprising, I believe it
is the result of physicians' personal relationships with their patients
and the desire to act in the best interest of each patient." (Dr.
Craig Alter, associate professor at the University of Pennsylvania School
of Medicine)
When published:
October 11, 2005
Issue 7:3 (Jul.-Sep. 2005)
The number: 7 percentage points
What it is:
The difference between (a) how many Americans favour "making it legal
for doctors to give terminally ill patients the means to end their lives"
(51%) and (b) how many favour "making it legal for doctors to assist
terminally ill people in committing suicide" (44%).
What it suggests:
Words matter. If an act gets "committed" (not simply "done"
or "carried out"), and if the name of the act ends in "icide"
(rhymes with "homicide" and "patricide"), people are
put off.
Comment:
There have been cases where a disliked term (e.g. "negro"
or "mentally retarded") got replaced by a preferred term (e.g.
"black" or "developmentally disabled"), presumably
because writers and broadcasters felt sympathy for the people who wanted
the change. This may happen with "assisted suicide", if the necessary
sympathy comes into being.
On the other hand, there are terms that probably seemed
harsh at first but have not been replaced; instead they have just had their
edges softened over time. Nowadays when people use the phrase "mercy
killing" it is almost as if they are using a one-word term, a compound
in which the "killing" segment has an effect gentler than what
it would have if it were not joined with the "mercy" segment.
A path like this may turn out to be the one that is followed by the phrase
"assisted suicide".
When published:
August 4, 2005
For more information:
Princeton Survey Research Associates / Pew Research Center for the People
and the Press / Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life
Issue 7:2 (Apr.-Jun. 2005)
The number: 75%
What it is:
The percentage of respondents who answered "Yes" when asked by
Gallup (USA) "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 family request it?"
Among people who described themselves as liberal, the percentage rose to
82%; among self-described conservatives it was 63%, though even among evangelical
Christians it did not fall below 61%.
The 75% figure was a 6% increase over the percentage in a 2004 Gallup survey
on the same topic.
What it suggests:
Among Americans, support for physician-administered euthanasia is high
and getting higher.
When published:
May 17, 2005
Issue 7:1 (Jan.-Mar. 2005)
The number: 71%
What it is:
American doctors who endorse the legalization of physician-assisted suicide
under a wide variety of circumstances (41%), plus those who also endorse
it but only in a narrow range of cases (30%).
The doctors in the sample were asked whether they considered themselves
to be politically liberal or politically conservative. Of those who identified
themselves as politically liberal, 81% said it is ethical to assist a patient
who has opted for suicide; of those who identified themselves as politically
conservative, 72% said assisted suicide is unethical.
What it suggests:
A politically liberal government that legalized assisted suicide would
have the support of doctors who are also politically liberal, and these
doctors might well constitute the majority.
When published:
March 3, 2005
Issue 6:3 (Jul.-Sep. 2004)
The number: 47%
What it is:
Among 790 Britons recently surveyed, this many said they would provide
help in dying to a loved one who was suffering unbearably.
What it suggests:
"By saying they would be prepared to break the law if a terminally
ill loved one asked them to, the public are sending a clear message to
our lawmakers that the law needs reform." (Deborah Annetts, head of
the Voluntary Euthanasia Society of England and Wales)
When published:
September 9, 2004
For more information:
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/homeaffairs/story/0,11026,1300721,00.html