One debate. Several arguments. The headlines November of 2014 read, “My Right to Death with Dignity at 29”. “I do not want to die. But I am dying. And I want to die on my own terms”, Brittany Maynard exclaims. A wife, a daughter, a victim of a fatal Brain tumor, and an activist of Death-With-Dignity. Euthanasia stands boldly in five states, those being: Washington, Oregon, California, Vermont and Bernalillo County, New Mexico. Despite my strong religious beliefs, through agency, the euthanasia illustrated in Britany Maynard’s case is ethical and is a legitimate moral option.
Oregon’s former governor John Kitzhaber states simply, “I believe an individual should have control, should be able to make choices about the end of their life . . .
…show more content…
Autonomy in life is essential. The majority of medical professionals deem living as the process of breathing and brain activity. However, is an individual genuinely living through suffering? The sixth annual report on Oregon’s Death with Dignity Act concluded, 93% of patients were concerned with losing autonomy, 93% a decreasing ability to participate in activities that make life enjoyable, and 82% a loss of dignity (Department of Human Services, pg.14). Maynard states, “"The worst thing that could happen to me is that I wait too long because I 'm trying to seize each day, but I somehow have my autonomy taken away from me by my disease because of the nature of my cancer." Critics hang on to the notion that these embarrassing matters are simply a part of life and aging, however that is not the outlook of those suffering from terminal illnesses. Individuals, such as, Britany Maynard who at only twenty-nine years of age should not have to endure the debilitating suffering of a disease that would leave her severely physically incapacitated to such an extent that she would have no control of her body, and functions to be at the mercy of those around her when her condition was in effect already a death sentence. Why should she have to allow the disease to dictate the end of her life? This is not just a process of aging there is indeed a difference between an incurable disease that leaves it victims at its mercy and the breaking down of …show more content…
Those who oppose Euthanasia or Physician assisted suicide often believe that individuals are ending their lives due to financial burden or the prolonged burden/suffering on their loved ones. However, in the same report stated above, Oregon’s Death with Dignity Act, only 3.7% of patients expressed those very concerns. In my opinion those concerns are colossal and weigh heavily on those burdened with terminal illness. Britany Maynard mentioned her hopes for her family to move on and continue their lives, “there 's no part of me that wants him to live out the rest of his life just missing his wife, so I hope he moves on and becomes a father." Put yourself in that position. I do not believe any individual wants to live each day knowing that the very illness that is eating at their own life is also corroding away at the lives of those who they love the most. It may sound vulgar, however it many cases it is true. Family members take leave from work, to tend to their loved ones needs, knowing at any point their breathing will stop and their lives will be changed
Death is a natural process that will be experienced by everyone at some point, desirably at the end of a long, well lived life. The reality is that no one knows when that time will come or how it will happen. Unfortunately, for the terminally ill, death is in the near future and it is a sobering reality. Therefore, when that time comes, people need to know that they will have options, and the assurance that death does not have to be an agonizing end. They can choose to endure the annihilating pain that comes with the disease and allow it to take its natural course or choose to put an end to it, surrounded by those who love them.
Terminally ill patients lose control over so many aspects of their lives, in many ways physician-assisted death gives them back some of the control they lost. Illness is not discriminatory. Therefore, people of all ages and backgrounds are diagnosed with things like cancer, kidney failure, and heart disease every day. Also, for anyone who is unfortunate enough to be diagnosed with any terminal illness, it can feel like their disease controls every aspect of their lives and they have no choice in the matter. Authors for the Journal of the American Society on Aging Lee Combs and Grube describe how persistent pain took control of a young woman named Brittany Maynard’s life, “Even after undergoing a sophisticated surgery and numerous cancer treatments,
Public opinion polls showed increased support for physician assisted suicide. This was due in part to technological advances in medicine as well as a greater recognition of patient’s rights.” Twenty-nine-year-old Brittany Maynard, utilized Oregon’s Death with Dignity Act, took her own life in November 2014 following a diagnosis of terminal brain cancer. “A Pew poll conducted after Ms. Maynard’s death, revealed that people viewed this as a heroic act. Also, revealed, the majority of Americans, most likely including physicians, now favor legalizing physician-assisted suicide for painful and incurable conditions: 68 percent in favor, 28 percent opposed.
Why has dignity become the defining and unifying aspect of the right to die debates? Whether “Dying with dignity” is defined as having a meaningful death or as a death without undue suffering or loss of autonomy (as proposed by the right to die movement), “dying with dignity” is now synonymous with having “a good death.” Dignity represents a taken for granted ideal of both sides of the debate, with an assumption that all human beings desire to die with dignity. Many right to die advocates argue for more relative and contingent definitions and understandings of dignity. In current terms, dignity is subjective and may depend on how the person views their mental and physical being.
According to Karaim in 2013 “Decisions about sustaining life, allowing it to end or even hastening death are among the most difficult choices terminally ill patients and their families can face” (para 1). Patients going through this have a bountiful number of things going
Brittany Maynard chose to the “Death with Dignity” option after learning that she only had six months to live after her brain cancer became more aggressive and turned to a grade 4 glioblastoma. She moved from California to Oregon in order to legally receive a prescription of a lethal dose of barbiturates. Oregonis one of five states in the U.S that has the passed the Death with Dignity Act. Brittany chose this option because she did not want to go through radiation or live the last of her days in pain while her family watched. Brittany stated, “Because the rest of my body is young and healthy, I m likely to physically hang on for a long time even though cancer is eating my mind, and my family would have to watch that,” (page 565).
Assisted Suicide: A Controversial Topic Assisted suicide, also known as physician-assisted death (PAD), has been a topic of controversy for decades. While some argue that PAD should be legalized to grant terminally ill patients the right to die with dignity, others believe it goes against the sanctity of life. This essay will explore the arguments for and against assisted suicide and offer recommendations on how to approach the issue. PAD is Important
After considerable research she decided to relocate from California to Oregon one of five states where there is a Death with Dignity Act (Maynard). While some people feel that physicians must do everything possible to keep their patients alive, I believe that the Death with Dignity Act should be a legal option for terminally ill patients. A terminal illness can cause the patient pain and loss of autonomy and dignity, the family of the patient can experience emotional suffering, and medical costs can become
“Be smart, be strong, live honorably and with dignity, and just hold on” (Fray). Physician assisted suicide or better known as Death with Dignity isn’t your everyday topic or thought, but for the terminally ill it’s a constant want. The Death with Dignity isn’t something that all people or religions are in favor of and nor is the act passed in all states in the United States. Only three states in the U.S. today, Oregon, Vermont, and Washington offer their residents the option to have aid in dying as long as all the requirements are met. Death with Dignity doesn’t effect just the terminally ill person, but as well as family and friends around them creating many conflicting thoughts when opinion if Death with Dignity is truly moral and a choice
The Death with Dignity Act (DWDA), which allows terminally-ill patients to request physician-assisted suicide, was first introduced in Oregon in 1997. The basic premise of the law is that terminally ill patients, with no outside help, should be able to choose the right to end their life. Since then a few more states have the DWDA or an similar law in their state; an ongoing debate is going on to make the act legal across the nation. The Death with Dignity act allows the individual’s request to die to be acknowledged by the state. Though various of groups and people have spoken against this act, Oregon, with close to two decades of experience with the law, has shown that it can work well even when faced with backlash from the public because
The Death with Dignity Act has two arguments: those who believe we have the right to choose how and when we die, and those who believe we do not possess that right; that we should not interfere with the natural order of life. Every year, people across America are diagnosed with a terminal illness. For some people there is time: time to hope for a cure, time to fight the disease, time to pray for a miracle. For others however, there is very little or no time. For these patients, their death is rapidly approaching and for the vast majority of them, it will be a slow and agonizing experience.
In her essay, On the Fear of Death, Elisabeth Kubler-Ross discusses the “changes that have taken place in the last few decades, changes that are ultimately responsible for the increased fear of death...” (On the Fear of Death, Page 2). Furthermore, Kubler-Ross emphasizes this increased fear, with the discussion of the treatment for the severely ill. Kubler-Ross claims that severely ill patients are “often treated like a person with no right to opinion,” and that “it would take so little to remember that the sick person too has feelings, has wishes and opinions, and has...the right to be heard” (On the Fear of Death, Page 4).
Imagine being unable to walk, unable to speak, unable to move and unable to breathe. Imagine being in a state of complete paralysis where the only thing that keeps on functioning is your brain, and you live chained to a machine doctors call life support. Imagine being told that you have an incurable disease that will inevitably kill you. Maybe next month. Maybe next year.
The Right to Die has been taking effect in many states and is rapidly spreading around the world. Patients who have life threatening conditions usually choose to die quickly with the help of their physicians. Many people question this right because of its inhumane authority. Euthanasia or assisted suicide are done by physicians to end the lives of their patients only in Oregon, Washington, Vermont, Montana, New Mexico and soon California that have the Right to Die so that patients don’t have to live with depression, cancer and immobility would rather die quick in peace.
THE EUTHANASIA CONTROVERSY Summary Euthanasia has constantly been a heated debate amongst commentators, such as the likes of legal academics, medical practitioners and legislators for many years. Hence, the task of this essay is to discuss the different faces minted on both sides of the coin – should physicians and/or loved ones have the right to participate in active euthanasia? In order to do so, the essay will need to explore the arguments for and against legalizing euthanasia, specifically active euthanasia and subsequently provide a stand on whether or not it should be an accepted practice.