News of The Day: Boundaries of a Living Will

I found myself troubled and confused recently by the story of Kerrie Wooltorton. Let me give you some background information. On September 15, 2007, Kerrie wrote a letter. In three days, she intended to poison herself with antifreeze. In this document, she described her mental condition as she planned out her own death. She made it very clear that she wanted no effort made to save her life. After ingesting the antifreeze, Kerrie called an ambulance. Once arriving at the hospital, she gave the note to the doctors in the emergency room of Norfolk University.

Her note was well written and coherent. She was clearly intelligent and appeared to be sane. She explained, in detail, that she knew the effect drinking antifreeze would have on her system but that she was ready to die. The doctors had a difficult decision, as I’m sure you can imagine. She was a healthy, young woman before poisoning herself, although, her family did described her as depressed. Ultimately, they found their hands tied, the letter considered to be a living will. Therefore, they kept her comfortable and followed her wishes.

The right to die is an age-old argument. Most of us are in favor of the right to plan our own death under certain circumstances. A person with terminal cancer, in my opinion, should have the choice to end their suffering.

The question here is one of precedent. Where do we as a society draw the line? The fight for personal freedom and the right to make our own choices is also an age-old debate. The legal community has supported the doctors in their decision. Ultimately, I suppose the timing was the defining factor. If the letter had been found in Kerrie’s hand before she had taken the poison, more than likely, they would have considered it their responsibility to save her. Because of her careful planning, the scene unfolded differently. To treat her against her wishes, legally is consider assault.

I think, personally, my confusion comes in the wording of the letter. Here’s a small sample of what Kerrie wrote.

“I am aware that you may think that because I called the ambulance I therefore want treatment, THIS IS NOT THE CASE! I do however want to be comfortable as nobody wants to die alone and scared and without going into details there are loads of reasons I do not want to die at home which I realize you will not understand and I apologize for this,”

Mentally, I picture a living will as something that states do not put me on life support. This reads more like a suicide note. If I walk up to you and hand you a note that says, “I want to die, please let me.” Then I put a gun to my head in front of you, you’re going to try to stop me. It’s just common sense. I wouldn’t draw attention to my actions, if I didn’t want you too, no matter what I say to try to convince otherwise.

The question that I believe arises here, however, is not whether these doctors made the right choice. Given the legal advice they had at the time, it was the only decision they could make. My fear is that the Kerrie Wooltorton case opens up Pandora’s Box. The law clearly needs to address this issue. In the current economic climate, with unemployment rates rising everyday, we have to consider whether more people might attempt this maneuver. This was the first case of its type recorded; we need to decide if it will be the last.

Those decisions are not mine to make, I’m too low on the food chain for that. However, there are lobbying groups that have the influence to force lawmakers to better define the boundaries of the living will. Somehow, I doubt we’ve heard the last of this issue. 

Until next time … Peace
Darla