This election, West Virginians will decide whether to amend the state constitution to ban medically assisted suicide, euthanasia and mercy killing. Here’s what you need to know to decide whether to vote for or against the amendment.
What is the difference between medically assisted suicide, euthanasia and mercy killing?
Physician-assisted suicide is sometimes referred to as medical aid in dying.
It is “when the patient performs a life-ending act with the assistance of a physician.”
Euthanasia is when the physician administers the life-ending drug.
Mercy killing is another word for euthanasia, although some ethicists believe the word specifically means without the person’s consent.
Read the full voter guide
What does the proposed amendment say and do?
When you get your ballot, it’s going to say: The purpose of this amendment is to protect West Virginians against medically assisted suicide.
Then it will give you the following instructions:
To vote in favor of the Amendment submitted, darken the oval next to “FOR.”
To vote against the Amendment, darken the oval next to “AGAINST.”
However, the amendment would add the following text to the state’s Bill of Rights:
“No person, physician, or health care provider in the State of West Virginia shall participate in the practice of medically assisted suicide, euthanasia, or mercy killing of a person. Nothing in this section prohibits the administration or prescription of medication for the purpose of alleviating pain or discomfort while the patient’s condition follows its natural course; nor does anything in this section prohibit the withholding or withdrawing of life-sustaining treatment, as requested by the patient or the patient’s decision-maker, in accordance with State law. Further, nothing in this section prevents the State from providing capital punishment.”
Isn’t this already illegal in West Virginia?
If the amendment passes, it would have no immediate impact. Current law already prohibits medically assisted suicide. If you have the medical power of attorney for a loved one, current West Virginia law allows you to withhold life-prolonging treatment, if that is the patient’s wish or if they are unable to communicate their wishes. This constitutional amendment would not change that. What it would do is make it harder for lawmakers to — at some later time — legalize physician-assisted suicide in the state.
As it stands now, legislators could introduce a bill to allow medically assisted suicide and pass it in into law in a regular session.
But by adding a ban to the West Virginia Constitution, lawmakers would make it more difficult to ever make it legal by passing a bill. That’s because removing a provision of the constitution would require passing another joint resolution, then returning the issue to the voters to remove the constitutional ban. Court rulings or a constitutional convention could also alter the constitution.
The death penalty/capital punishment was abolished in West Virginia in 1965.
On the Senate floor earlier this year, Sen. Eric Tarr, R-Putnam, added language to the constitutional amendment proposal exempting capital punishment from the medically assisted suicide ban.
What do proponents of the amendment say?
During the last session, the Republican-led Legislature voted, with mostly Republican support, to put the amendment on the ballot. Del. Pat McGeehan, R-Hancock, pushed for the amendment and has been the most outspoken supporter. The influential Speaker of the House, Roger Hanshaw, R-Clay, was also a sponsor of the House Joint Resolution.
Groups that oppose physician-assisted suicide include disability rights advocates and anti-abortion groups.
West Virginians for Life supports the amendment because of its stance on the sanctity of human life, from fetus to the end of life, and wants to see only natural deaths be permitted. In an interview, Mary Tillman, legislative director of the West Virginians for Life subcommittee, the WV Alliance for Ethical Health, said the organization is concerned West Virginia could follow in the footsteps of other states that have permitted the practice.
“We don’t want to be cold-heartedly encouraging elderly and sick people to commit suicide,” she said.
McGeehan has said patients seeking the option may actually have lost hope and are crying out for help because they need family and friends’ intervention and support.
What do opponents of the amendment say?
The American Civil Liberties Union of West Virginia and the national group Compassion & Choices are among the opponents of the amendment.
“The right to avoid excruciating, end-of-life pain is essential to bodily autonomy and basic freedom,” the ACLU of WV said in a statement. “This is particularly cruel in West Virginia. We already boast one of the oldest and sickest populations in the nation.”
A League of Women Voters’ statement says the amendment is “yet another example of the government attempting to interfere with very difficult and personal medical decisions.”
Compassion & Choices, a national group that works to implement medical aid in dying laws on the state and federal levels, aims to assist patients in developing end-of-life plans. The organization wants to ensure access to the practice and provide terminally ill patients with the option, with the broader vision of “a society that affirms life and accepts the inevitability of death.”
Ten states and Washington. D.C. allow the practice of medically assisted suicide.
What do physicians say about physician-assisted suicide?
The American Medical Association’s Code of Ethics includes two opinions on the highly-controversial practice while noting that both supporters and opponents in the medical profession “share a fundamental commitment to values of care, compassion, respect, and dignity.”
The first opinion is that a physician’s responsibility is healing, and assisting with suicide is in conflict with that. Physicians should be attentive to patients’ needs, and that should include connecting them with caregivers who can offer emotional and spiritual support as well as make them comfortable as they suffer debilitating illnesses and pain.
The second opinion is that physicians have to be true to their own moral codes and act on their own beliefs. However, the AMA code lists guidelines for physicians to consider before offering medical aid in dying. These include being upfront about their support of the practice when accepting patients, considering whether delaying it would cause patients significant emotional harm, informing the patient of all end-of-life options and considering the effects of their actions on the medical community as a whole.