Dilemma in Dying

Weak and in agony, Carmen Martinez, 72, pleaded for the right to a peaceful death. Hospitalized in Hialeah, Fla., for almost two months, she had a fatal form of hemolytic anemia, a blood disease. The treatment that was keeping her alive involved surgical incisions into her withered veins so that almost continual blood transfusions could be forced in. "Please don't torture me any more," she begged her doctor, Rolando Lopez. Many doctors routinely, if quietly, withhold life-preserving treatment when they determine that its only effect will be to prolong the agony of dying. But Dr. Lopez was concerned that he might be charged with aiding and abetting a suicide on the one hand, or treating a patient against her will on the other. He took his problem to court.

The Right to Die. Judge David Potter was no less torn by the dilemma. U.S. law has not really resolved the issue, though criminal prosecutions against doctors are rare and heavy sentences rarer still. Unable to find any precedent to guide him, Judge Potter concluded that the law clearly opposes suicide but, just as clearly, Mrs. Martinez's treatment seemed as bad as her disease. "I can't decide whether she should live or die; that's up to God," said the judge. But, he added, "a person has a right not to suffer pain. A person has the right to live or die in dignity." With a somewhat calculated indirection, he therefore ruled that Mrs. Martinez could not be forced to accept any treatment that was painful.

The transfusions were stopped. Last week, one day after the court decision, Mrs. Martinez found the peaceful death she had sought.

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so reader's discretion is required.