Right to Die With Dignity In Case Of Terminal Illness Everyone will have one moment in life to ask, how would I like to die? This was the question that many people in America were asking themselves when the case of Brittany Maynard, a 29 year old female appeared in the news around the country. This female from California was diagnosed with aggressive terminal brain cancer. Many doctors tried different treatment trying to save her life, but the prognosis was not promising at all (Maynard, 2014). And she was told by doctors that her death will be under agonizing pain. With such horrible fear of losing control, she made up her mind and decided to die with dignity by medical assistance with her family at her bedside. The choice was not easy …show more content…
The first option was to let her stay with cancer and die with excruciating pain and the second option was to move to some state where patient will terminal illness can have assisted death under medical prescription. She was an educated woman full of life, full of future and many plans and as any adult who have values and beliefs about how end of life should be; she decided to die with dignity without pain. For the wish to come true she had to move to Oregano where the right to die act is legal (Maynard, 2014). Moving wasn’t easy, but through a lot of sacrifice, her family was able to move with her and be at her side as she passed away. Through doctors and nurses, she was able to get a medical prescription that will help her to die while asleep without any pain on any day of her choice. Looking at ethical relativism perspective, she was able to do what was right and reasonable according to her values and beliefs. Public opinion around the world tried to judge her, thinking that she should not have chosen to die. who have the right to dictate someone else‘s life telling them what to do. She was the one living that life with cancer, knew how it felt like and as long as she was in the right state of mind that was her right. Don’t really criticize her case until you walk a mile in her …show more content…
She did chose not to die under excruciating pain from that terrible disease which has taken so many loved ones. She had gone through surgery and many chemotherapy treatments but still her brain tumor kept growing. After all that had been done by medical team, the outcome was terrifying; instead her life continued to deteriorate and would go into so many seizures and loss consciousness. Doctors had to tell her the truth of what was going to happen, and sometime it is not easy for a doctor to be able to tell a patient how many months or days they have left on earth, but regardless they gave her all necessary information regarding her illness treatments and alternatives. All medical professionals have their own values and beliefs, but they used ethical framework and stayed within their scope of practice and honored the wishes of the patient. All her information was kept confidential and she shared what she thought was necessary to share with the public viewers. She died with hope that her voice and freedom of choice would be heard by the public and lawmakers, in order to legalize the right to die act in every state in
This is a fascinating case because it presents the distinction between a patient’s right to refuse treatment and a physician’s assistance with suicide. Legally, Diane possessed the right to refuse treatment, but she would have faced a debilitating, painful death, so the issue of treatment would be a moot point. It would be moot in the sense that Diane seemed to refuse treatment because the odds were low, even if she survived she would spend significant periods of time in the hospital and in pain, and if she didn’t survive she would spend her last days in the hospital. If Diane were to merely refuse treatment and nothing else (as the law prescribes) than she would not have been able to avoid the death which she so dearly wanted to avoid.
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
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
In A Tender Hand in the Presence of Death, Heather, the nurse, would put in IVs and feeding tubes in hopes of prolonging hospice care even when they were ineffective in order to give more time to the families who were having trouble letting go (MacFarquhar, 2016). In my personal situation, I can relate, as two of my grandparents have passed away from cancer and suffered for a long time before passing. Although it was incredibly sad and our families bargained for more time, there was some peace in knowing that the suffering had come to an end once they passed. For our own selfish reasons, we want as much time as possible with our loved ones who are suffering and close to death, but in reality, the decision for assisted suicide should only concern the individual whose life it
Tom Harpur, in his 1990 article in the Toronto Star - "Human dignity must figure in decisions to prolong life" - presents numerous arguments in support of his thesis that the use of advanced medical technology to prolong life is often immoral and unethical, and does not take into consideration the wishes of the patient or their human dignity. However, it must be noted that the opening one-third of the article is devoted to a particular "human interest" story which the author uses to illustrate his broader argument, as well as to arouse pity among readers to support his view that human life should not always be prolonged by medical technology. This opening section suggests that a critical analysis of Harpur 's arguments may find widespread use of logical fallacies in support of the article 's thesis. In this essay I will argue that, given how greatly
America is a champion of the freedom of choice. Citizens have the right to choose their religion, their political affiliation, and make personal decisions about nearly every facet of their daily lives. Despite all of these opportunities, one choice society commonly ignores is that of deciding how one’s life will end. Death seems like a highly unpredictable, uncontrollable occurrence, but for the past 17 years, citizens of Oregon have had one additional option not offered to most Americans in the deciding of their end-of-life treatment. Oregon’s Death With Dignity Act (DWDA), passed in 1994, allows qualified, terminally-ill Oregon patients to end their lives through the use of a doctor-prescribed, self-administered, lethal prescription (Office of Disease Prevention and Epidemiology, n.d.). The nationally controversial act has faced injunctions, an opposing measure, and has traveled to the Supreme Court, however it still remains in effect today.
In many interviews she explained how she was not suicidal, but wanted to end her life on her own terms. She stated: “I would not tell anyone else that he or she should choose death with dignity. My question is: Who has the right to tell me that I don’t deserve this choice?” (CNN, 2014). She felt that she didn’t want to put her family through physical and emotional pain and that she thought it was her right to make that choice for herself. She said once she had the prescription in her hands that she had felt a tremendous sense of relief (CNN, 2014). She stated that she felt in control and that she could move forward in her remaining days and enjoy her family knowing that she had a safety net (CNN, 2014). Brittany Maynard ended her life on November 1, 2014 by taking the prescribed medication for assisted
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....
... was doing what he thought was best for her and what she wanted. We have the right to live why can’t we have the right to died when it’s nothing left of us to live.
The approach of physician-assisted suicide respects an individual’s need for personal dignity. It does not force the terminally ill patient to linger hopelessly, and helplessly, often at great cost to their psyche. It drive’s people mad knowing they are going to die in a short period of time, suffering while they wait in a hospital bed.
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.
The right to assisted suicide is a significant topic that concerns people all over the United States. The debates go back and forth about whether a dying patient has the right to die with the assistance of a physician. Some are against it because of religious and moral reasons. Others are for it because of their compassion and respect for the dying. Physicians are also divided on the issue. They differ where they place the line that separates relief from dying--and killing. For many the main concern with assisted suicide lies with the competence of the terminally ill. Many terminally ill patients who are in the final stages of their lives have requested doctors to aid them in exercising active euthanasia. It is sad to realize that these people are in great agony and that to them the only hope of bringing that agony to a halt is through assisted suicide.When people see the word euthanasia, they see the meaning of the word in two different lights. Euthanasia for some carries a negative connotation; it is the same as murder. For others, however, euthanasia is the act of putting someone to death painlessly, or allowing a person suffering from an incurable and painful disease or condition to die by withholding extreme medical measures. But after studying both sides of the issue, a compassionate individual must conclude that competent terminal patients should be given the right to assisted suicide in order to end their suffering, reduce the damaging financial effects of hospital care on their families, and preserve the individual right of people to determine their own fate.
The death with Dignity law provides many opportunities; it gives people freedom to die with liberty. The death with dignity law act was first established on October of 1997. The first state in the United States to have the law and to be approved was in Oregon. “Oregon, Washington, Vermont, Montana and New Mexico. Only Oregon, Washington and Vermont have enacted specific Death With Dignity laws from Oregon's first Death With Dignity Act but the other two states have very alike similar laws”( Deathwithdignity ). Participation in Death with Dignity laws is really voluntary, for patients and doctors. No one is encouraged or obligated to use them, they just focus on providing an option to those who wish to use it and die with dignity. No one qualifies
The first definition of ethical in the dictionary is “pertaining to, or dealing with morals or the principles of morality; pertaining to right and wrong in conduct.” The first definition Dilemma is defined as “a situation requiring a choice between equally undesirable alternatives.” Using these two definitions, an ethical dilemma can be defined as when a person has to choose a decision that goes against one’s morals. One alternative may have a negative impact on one’s life or another person’s life. Another alternative may be an excellent choice for one person but may have negative impacts as well. Therefore, an ethical dilemma often puts ones morals and values into question. This paper will review a case study of euthanasia,
First, let’s consider the reasoning behind the patients choosing to forego extraordinary treatment for their cancer. They have decided, as Beauchamp would put it, that refusing to prolong their lives in the face of pain and suffering “neither harms nor wrongs [them] and may provide a benefit” (Beauchamp, 76). They “intend to quit life because of its bleak possibilities” (Beauchamp, 77). The doctor readily complies with their wishes out of moral, legal, and professional obligation. A choice has been made to let both patients die, as a response to their “competent and authoritative refusal of treatment” (Beauchamp 74).