Summary
West Virginia Amendment 1 prohibits any medical professional from taking part in medically assisted suicide, also known as euthanasia or mercy killing.
Fiscal Impact
No fiscal information was located, though it is likely that this amendment’s fiscal impact would be minimal, other than possibly some prosecution and incarceration costs.
Proponents’ Arguments
Proponents state the measure’s purpose is “to recognize that West Virginians shall not have medically-assisted suicide or euthanasia forced upon them by prohibiting such actions.” Americans United for Life believes the amendment could help protect the elderly and disabled, calling it a “proactive measure that informs decision-makers and counters any momentum achieved by those asserting that suicide and death are America’s answers to illness, disease, disability, or suffering.”
Opponents’ Arguments
Opponents say patients have the right to die with dignity, and they note that a ban is already in West Virginia statute, so this measure is not needed. Indeed, House Delegate Joey Garcia (D-Marion) argues there is no need to put this in the state constitution when it is already state law.
Discussion
Interestingly, this is the first time a state has initiated a vote to ban medically assisted suicide via constitutional amendment. Nine states and the District of Columbia expressly permit it, and one additional state decriminalized the practice through a court ruling.
While suicide is no longer considered a crime, all states prohibit assisted suicide, with exceptions in the states where medically assisted suicide has been authorized.
The organization Death With Dignity states, “Our goal is to ensure people with terminal illness can decide for themselves what a good death means in accordance with their values and beliefs, and that should include having an option for death with dignity.”
Criminalizing conduct is not always the best way to express societal disapproval of the conduct. Many would argue that people should be able to make those decisions for themselves, and the state should not prevent doctors from treating patients in accordance with the patient’s preferences.
However, the American Medical Association’s Code of Medical Ethics frowns on physician-assisted suicide. Its provision on the matter underscores that “[t]houghtful, morally admirable individuals hold diverging, yet equally deeply held and well-considered perspectives about physician-assisted suicide.” Nevertheless, that guidance ultimately finds the practice “fundamentally incompatible with the physician’s role as healer, [and notes that it] would be difficult or impossible to control, and would pose serious societal risks.”
Whatever one’s view on physician-assisted suicide, it is worth keeping in mind that West Virginia law already bans medically assisted suicide, and this attempt to put the ban in the state constitution indicates opponents are worried the people of the state will change their minds in the future and want to make it harder to change the law.