John Jay Hooker is a familiar name in the state of
Tennessee. Until recently he had been described in a tongue and cheek manner as
a
political gadfly and
perennial candidate. A
gifted orator, born to a prominent family, Hooker’s
verbiage often got him in trouble
as in 2010 when he had his law license
suspended
for thirty days and was publicly
censored for filing frivolous law suits and making statements regarding judges
with “reckless disregard of their truth or falsity.” Hooker is known for championing his causes
with passion and flamboyance. Now in his eighties and diagnosed with a terminal
form of cancer, he is now being revered as Tennessee’s version of
Brittany Maynard as he seeks to bring
physician assisted suicide to his home state.
Tennessee,
along with 45 other states, outlaws physician assisted suicide. This should not
to be confused a patient’s right to decline treatments or use living wills to
stipulate what measures they want used to keep them alive. It also does not
prohibit the use of palliative care which has the purpose of relieving pain
until natural death occurs. Physician assisted suicide would allow a doctor,
upon request, to give a prescription for a lethal drug to end the life of
the patient. They alleviate pain by
killing the patient.
A
bill was introduced in the TN General Assembly earlier in the year by Democrats
as a courtesy
to Hooker and met with a lukewarm
but polite response. It promptly was
assigned to a summer study committee, a tactic used to gently
end discussion. Hooker, who never
gently ends any discussion, brought a lawsuit against the state arguing that
the law forbidding assisted suicide was unconstitutional, citing the privacy
clause in the state constitution attempting to accomplish by judicial fiat what
could not get done in the legislative body answerable to the people. That
tactic has been used successfully before by the ACLU and
Planned Parenthood to wipe out restrictions around legalized abortions
passed by the state legislature. It took 14 years and amending
the state constitution to correct this.
The
liberal editorial board of the Tennessean quickly endorsed physician assisted
suicide and
lionized Hooker as a civil rights champion, not mentioning is earlier ties to the paper. They praised his fiery
rhetoric as they endorsed him and his cause.
“At last month’s TedX Nashville conference, Hooker gave a rousing speech concerning his desire to take his life with a physician’s help, and it earned him a standing ovation after he recited at the end Martin Luther King Jr.’s famous words: “Free at last, free at last.”
I sat through the two hour court case heard in Chancery Court on July 10th by Chancellor Carol McCoy. The state’s main argument was straightforward and asked the judge to dismiss the suit since public policy matters should be decided in the General Assembly and not
the courts. They pointed out the state’s compelling interest in preserving all
life and warned of the eroding protections for the vulnerable population that
may be at risk with the overturning of this protective law. The poor, elderly,
disabled, and mentally deficient citizens would be endangered as the right to
duty quickly morphs into the duty to die.
Allowing assisted suicide would also erode the trust between patient and
doctor who would go from healer to executioner.
What
astounded me most about the arguments from the lawyers supporting assisted
suicide was the amount of time spent on telling emotional stories laced with
extreme hyperbole of slow, painful deaths emphasizing the discomfort of family
members having to watch loved ones lose their bodily functions and dignity
instead of focusing on legal merits of their argument. The hyperbole included a
paper from a Vanderbilt professor describing a sick old woman (later identified
as his mother) who stored up sleeping pills for her suicide and her distress
when she could not find them at the appropriate time.
When
they did mention the merits of the case using the law, they argued that the
Constitution should be an evolving and growing document that responds to
changing times and poll numbers. They
referenced the growing aging population and said this may be in great demand by
this age group! Or do they mean in
demand for this age group! Slip of the tongue, perhaps?? Their
other legal argument centered on a privacy clause in the state constitution and
that the current language in the law forbidding assisted suicide was vague.
Mr.
Hooker seemed larger than life in the courtroom, though not speaking all
cameras were trained on his every expression as his lawyer used terms as
“rendezvous with death” and spoke of his desire to have dignity and die at home
surrounded by loved ones. While no one
is challenging his right to discontinue treatments, the lawyer suggested that
having a script for a lethal dosage may give someone like him the courage to go
for the experimental trial, knowing they had the backup plan of the lethal meds
at the ready. His lawyer stoked fear
insisting not allowing assisted suicide was like murder forcing the patient to
endure a slow death. He referred to the
refusal of assisted suicide to being in hell continually tormented by the devil!
I cringed
at weak and inappropriate attempts at humor comparing assisted suicide to people with a fear of
flying smuggling small bottles of vodka on the plane to ease their fear. I was
most offended when they suggested that we are kinder to dogs that we put down
with sorrow in our hearts. So much for the sanctity of human life!
After
two hours of testimony, the Chancellor did not give her ruling pending the
submission of supplemental briefs from each side. She promised to do her best
to expedite her decision noting that time was of the essence for Hooker.
As Mr. Hooker exited the courtroom, he was
surrounded by reporters and cameras. He stopped to give a statement that was
run on many media outlets. Also exiting
the courtroom in wheelchairs or with assistance were those representing Not Dead Yet or other disability rights organizations. They were largely ignored as they silently made their way past the crowd. So this was the marketing of the culture of death. I think they understood clearly what this action would mean for them. Their lives would be seen as less valuable and a burden on society. They understood the subtle way that they would be made to feel that society would be better if they would embrace this route.
What I heard in that courtroom was all about control. I want to decide how and when I die. As the old Frank Sinatra song says ...I did it my way! God's way was not a concern. I don't know Mr. Hooker's spiritual condition, but the arguments on his behalf had a noticeable absence of any mention of prayer, faith, peace, or eternal hope. It also was absent any recognized value to caring for the weak and vulnerable by caregivers or society. It reminds us that when God is not revered as the Author and Creator of life, the very sanctity of human life becomes dependent on polling numbers and we are all diminished.
As
someone who lost a spouse to a malignant brain tumor (the same tumor that Brittany Maynard suffered from) and married to a
man who also lost his first wife to the very same brain tumor, we can attest that
you can die a natural death, surrounded by loved ones with
the assistance of palliative care. Caring for them was not a burden, but an honor and privilege that we cherish. Every day, hour and minute they lived was precious to us. They were the true heroes. They had death with dignity.
Pix: Nashville Public Radio WPLN
In 2011, under the guidance of pro-life Governor Bill Haslam (R), Tennessee became one of the first states to use administrative authority to divert funding away from Planned Parenthood to healthcare providers who do not commit abortions. This thwarted the anticipated legal challenge from the abortion industry that usually follows a legislative action. 
