Everyone has a Right to Die
In the medical dictionary, death with dignity is defined as “the philosophical concept that a terminally ill client should be allowed to die naturally and comfortably, rather than experience a comatose, vegetative life prolonged by mechanical support systems” (Elsevier). Then we must ask ourselves; why is this death with dignity such a philosophical idea? Why must a person’s right to their own life be haltered and prohibited by the law?
In most cases, the right of a dignified death with the help of a physician is prohibited due to religious beliefs and ideologies that are used as an opposition. Even with heated debates on the ethics of the Death With Dignity Act (DWDA), only three states (Oregon, Washington, and Vermont) have legalized this right, the right to have a patients last moments theirs to decide.
One prime example of a case in which death with dignity started with a terminally ill patient named Brittany Maynard. In 2014, Maynard, a 29-year-old teacher from Alamo, California, was diagnosed with severe terminal brain cancer. Knowing there was nothing but pain and suffering lying ahead, Maynard looked at her options and decided to move with her family to Portland, Oregon, where death with dignity was available.
Brittany Maynard wasn’t about to make a choice without giving up the fight. Before her decision to end her life she sought out Compassion & Choices, a DWDA support and advocacy support group, and with their help Maynard began to leave her mark on the world.
In her advocacy campaign, Maynard made YouTube videos that reached 13 million views in a matter of days. Saying in her videos, “I decided to share my story, and that wasn’t an easy choice to make but I decided to share it because...
... middle of paper ...
... pain and suffering, then we as the people of Ohio and the United States must remember duress patients like Brittany Maynard and what thousands of others go through.
We must never forget the legacies and the history of those who showed the world that everyone deserves the right to choose their own paths, to so what they know is right, and the choice to make their own decisions. If our country is ruled on the principals of freedom, then these freedoms should include the freedom of physicians to end the suffering of their patients, and patients who have terminal illnesses to seek a comfortable death surrounded by those they love.
Always remember that the Death With Dignity Act is a choice to end suffer, never a forced death, and as Thomas Jefferson once said- Everyone has “certain unalienable rights, and among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”
Both Brittany Maynard and Craig Ewert ultimately did not want to die, but they were aware they were dying. They both suffered from a terminal illness that would eventually take their life. Their worst fear was to spend their last days, in a state of stress and pain. At the same time, they would inflict suffering on their loved ones as their family witnessed their painful death. Brittany and Craig believed in the notion of dying with dignity. The states where they both resided did not allow “active voluntary euthanasia or mercy killing at the patient’s request” (Vaughn 269). As a result, they both had to leave their homes to a place that allowed them to get aid in dying. Brittany and Craig were able to die with dignity and peace. Both avoiding
Brittany Maynard was a 29 year old woman, she was thriving and loving life then, she was diagnosed with terminal brain cancer. Brittany did a lot of research about her cancer and she finally realized that there wouldn’t be any good outcome. After fighting the cancer for months, she had the option of living in her home with hospice coming in and caring for her. Brittany made the decision to move to Oregon with her family to be protected by the Death with Dignity law. She wanted to be able to die when it felt ‘right’. She wanted to say when enough was enough and she said all her goodbyes. Brittany also didn’t want to have hospice take care of her, because she would just be suffering and in pain for who knows how long, wondering when the time will be that she dies. Her family would have to sit there and watch that day by day. How could a family do that? Brittany chose not to go through radiation and lived her life to the fullest with her family happy and smiling, until that time felt ‘right’ and she couldn’t go on any longer. She actually had the medication for a long time, before she took it, because she didn’t want to die, but dying was going to happen anyway. She wanted to die on her terms. When my suffering becomes too great, I can say to all those I love, "I love you; come be by my side,
Currently, in the United States, 12% of states including Vermont, Oregon, and California have legalized the Right to Die. This ongoing debate whether or not to assist in death with patients who have terminal illness has been and is still far from over. Before continuing, the definition of Right to Die is, “an individual who has been certified by a physician as having an illness or physical condition which can be reasonably be expected to result in death in 24 months or less after the date of the certification” (Terminally Ill Law & Legal Definition 1). With this definition, the Right to die ought to be available to any person that is determined terminally ill by a professional, upon this; with the request of Right to Die, euthanasia must be
Braddok III Clarence H. MD MPH .” Physician aid-in-dying: Ethical topics in medicine” n.d University of Washington school of medicinestate death with dignity act” N.p n.d University of Washington department of bioethics and humanities 2009 web 24 March 2012
Office of Disease Prevention and Epidemiology. (n.d.). Frequently Asked Questions: Death with Dignity Act. Oregon Health Authority. Retrieved October 7, 2011, from http://public.health.oregon.gov/PROVIDERPARTNERRESOURCES/
The Death with Dignity Act was approved by voters in Oregon in 1994 and was confirmed in 1997 when the law went into effect. It is a law that allows mentally competent, terminally-ill adults to voluntarily request a prescription medication
Imagine, if you will, that you have just found out you have a terminal medical condition. Doesn’t matter which one, it’s terminal. Over the 6 months you have to live you experience unmeasurable amounts of pain, and when your free of your pain the medication you’re under renders you in an impaired sense of consciousness. Towards the 4th month, you begin to believe all this suffering is pointless, you are to die anyways, why not with a little dignity. You begin to consider Physician-Assisted Suicide (PAS). In this essay I will explain the ethical decisions and dilemmas one may face when deciding to accept the idea of Physician-Assisted Suicide. I will also provide factual information pertaining to the subject of PAS and testimony from some that advocate for legalization of PAS. PAS is not to be taken lightly. It is the decision to end one’s life with the aid of a medical physician. Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary states that PAS is “Suicide by a patient facilitated by means (as a drug prescription) or by information (as an indication of a lethal dosage) provided by a physician aware of the patient’s intent.” PAS is considered, by our textbook – Doing Ethics by Lewis Vaughn, an active voluntary form of euthanasia. There are other forms of euthanasia such as non-voluntary, involuntary, and passive. This essay is focusing on PAS, an active voluntary form of euthanasia. PAS is commonly known as “Dying/Death with Dignity.” The most recent publicized case of PAS is the case of Brittany Maynard. She was diagnosed with terminal brain cancer in California, where she lived. At the time California didn’t have Legislative right to allow Brittany the right to commit PAS so she was transported to Oregon where PAS is legal....
There are only three states that allow physician-assisted suicide: Washington, Oregon, and Montana. Oregon became the first by enacting the Death with Dignity Act which allows terminally-ill patients to end their lives through the voluntary self-administration of lethal medications, expressly prescribed by a physician for that purpose. (Oregon.gov) In November of 2008 Washington became the second and in December of the same year Montana agreed and became the third. A poll was given to Oregon physicians in 1999, nurses, and social workers in 2001. The majority of physicians 51% supported the death with dignity act, 48% of nurses were in favor, and 72% of social workers were in support. (Miller) These polls clearly show that the majority of voters are in support of Physician assisted suicide.
Terminally ill patients should have the legal option of physician-assisted suicide. Terminally ill patients deserve the right to control their own death. Legalizing assisted suicide would relive families of the burdens of caring for a terminally ill relative. Doctors should not be prosecuted for assisting in the suicide of a terminally ill patient. We as a society must protect life, but we must also recognize the right to a humane death. When a person is near death, in unbearable pain, they have the right to ask a physician to assist in ending their lives.
Oftentimes when one hears the term Physician Assisted Suicide (hereafter PAS) the words cruel and unethical come to mind. On October 27, 1997 Oregon passed the Death with Dignity Act, this act would allow terminally ill Oregon residents to end their lives through a voluntary self-administered dose of lethal medications that are prescribed by a physician (Death with Dignity Act) . This has become a vital, medical and social movement. Having a choice should mean that a terminally ill patient is entitled to the choice to pursue PAS. If people have the right to refuse lifesaving treatments, such as chemo and palliative care, then the choice of ending life with PAS should be a choice that is allowed.
What is a physician's duty to a patient? Are doctors ever justified in ending a life entrusted to their care, even at the request of the patient or his family? These questions are being asked in today's society as part of the growing debate surrounding physician-assisted euthanasia (PAS). Several well-publicized cases in the past few decades have only fueled the fire, inspiring equally convicted individuals and organizations to rise up on both sides. Pro-life advocates argue the immorality of assisted suicide, and are, except for a few instances, supported by the law. Pro-choice supporters not only cite ethical justification, but argue the practical benefits and recent legislation legalizing of some instances of euthanasia in limited areas of the world. Despite certain economic benefits and legal support, it is never justifiable for a doctor to facilitate the death of any patient.
A recent poll founded by the Canadian Medical Association found that “only one in five doctors surveyed. . . said they would be willing to perform euthanasia if the practice were legalized. . . Twice as many – 42 percent – said they would refuse to do so” (Kirkey 1). Euthanasia is defined as giving a patient the right to die early with a physician’s assistance, and the legalization of this practice is being considered by lawmakers in many countries, including the United States. Accordingly, 42 percent of doctors in Canada are on the right side of this debate. Euthanasia should not be legalized because it violates society’s views that life is sacred, creates economic pressure for doctors, and for those countries that have legalized it, their laws are not specific enough to fully protect patients.
Do people have the right to die? Is there, in fact, a right to die? Assisted suicide is a controversial topic in the public eye today. Individuals choose their side of the controversy based on a number of variables ranging from their religious views and moral standings to political factors. Several aspects of this issue have been examined in books, TV shows, movies, magazine articles, and other means of bringing the subject to the attention of the public. However, perhaps the best way to look at this issue in the hopes of understanding the motives behind those involved is from the perspective of those concerned: the terminally ill and the disabled.
My claim: I argue in favor of the right to die. If someone is suffering from a terminal illness that is: 1) causing them great pain – the pain they are suffering outweighs their will to live (clarification below) 2) wants to commit suicide, and is of sound mind such that their wanting is reasonable. In this context, “sound mind” means the ability to logically reason and not act on impulses or emotions. 3) the pain cannot be reduced to the level where they no longer want to commit suicide, then they should have the right to commit suicide. It should not be considered wrong for someone to give that person the tools needed to commit suicide.
Death is something inevitable which all human beings must have to face today or tomorrow, or some part of their life.There are many people around the world sinking their lives in the darkness of dignity. Each and every day individuals all throughout the U.S. are diagnosed with terminal illness. They are compelled to wait until they die naturally, at the same time their bodies deteriorate by their sickness that will eventually take their lives. Some of the time, this implies living excruciating pain ,and that most states in our nation cannot do anything about it legally. People should have the will to live or die as the death of dignity is one of those acts that promotes this behavior , as a result it should be legalized all over the states,