Elderly Deserve Choices, Not Just A Bitter End

Elderly deserve choices, not just a bitter end, May 16, 2010.

Today family, friends and neighbors who loved Joan and Thomas Vanacore are grieving their tragic deaths and wondering how it might have been different. The Vanacores, known by the community of North Haven as decent and loving people, died violently — because our society is dysfunctional around death. Our laws are cruel. Connecticut law denied them the peaceful, humane choices they deserved as their lives drew to a close.

Compassion & Choices is working hard to change that and the sadness of this case only increases our determination to succeed.

Both the Vanacores had terminal illnesses. Thomas, 73, had advanced cancer and Joan, 70, was dying of Alzheimer's. We can't know for certain what Thomas was thinking Monday when he shot his beloved wife of 38 years in the head and turned the gun on himself in the sunroom of their home. But their story repeats a pattern and illuminates truths all too familiar to those who fight for dignity and choices at the end of life.

Here is that truth: Many people with terminal illnesses want desperately to meet death on their own terms. Facing imminent disintegration of body and mind, they wish their passing to reflect the values and beliefs of a lifetime and avoid prolonged, needless suffering. The laws of most states prevent them from planning a peaceful, intended death, so they resort to violent means. Some jump from balconies and some drive into highway abutments. But most turn to America's icon — the gun.

Shame on a society that forces such a choice. These are our elders, and they deserve better. Their actions reflect values that form the backbone of America. Among these are a deep sense of responsibility for themselves and others, courage to face the hard facts of a tough situation and the practical ability to take charge of their fate. Many also act from extreme altruism and desire to spare their families the burden of a long and difficult demise.

Courage, altruism, responsibility —- those who would condemn the Vanacores don't appreciate the force of these bedrock American values.

The Vanacores join a line of decent, distinguished couples whose character led them to similar actions at the end of their lives. World War II Adm. Chester Nimitz Jr. and his wife planned their death together and left loving notes for their family. In 1975, world-famous theological scholar Henry van Dusen and his wife faced declining health and took overdoses of sleeping pills to end their lives. A letter for their three sons said they had led happy lives, and were not afraid to die.

When I think of the character of such people, I always recall the story told by a woman from the little town of Sedro-Woolley, Wash. She described her husband as a person who "took care" of whatever needed doing.

He took care of their rural home, and he took care of her. Dying of cancer and suffering excruciating pain, he still looked out for her needs. The day he died, he spent the morning sharpening all her kitchen knives. Then he embraced her tenderly, went out to the yard and shot himself there, so it wouldn't make a mess in the house.

The people who take pride in "taking care" deserve better from us. They deserve real choices and permission to die in peace and comfort, with the same honor and decency with which they lived their lives.

Aid in dying, the opportunity for the terminally ill and mentally competent to have the choice of life-ending medication prescribed by their doctors, is legal only in Oregon, Washington and Montana. Connecticut should turn the tragedy of the Vanacore case into hope and comfort for those who follow.

A case now in the courts, Blick v. Connecticut, takes the first step toward that hope.

By Barbara Coombs Lee, The Hartford Courant