Death with Dignity*

Death with Dignity

The United States Congress should enact the Death with Dignity Law into effect in all fifty states.  Terminally ill citizens should have the right to end their life and suffering through the use of physician-assisted suicide.  Advanced, terminal patients suffer unbearably and are considered to have a grave physical handicap. Keeping them alive when their wish is to die is selfish.  “Dignified dying is [an] undeserved opportunity, a great gift: the great gift” (Kung 2).

Torr asks the following questions in his book, “Euthanasia opposing Viewpoints”: Is euthanasia ethical? Should it be legalized? Would it lead to involuntary killing? Should physicians assist? It is further broken down into two categories justifiable and emotional. Mature adults should have their wishes considered. Yes, we should first try to cure them. However, taking into consideration their doctors opinions, that their living will is done, that they assert no criminal liability, and that they leave a note of explanation; it is justifiable. He also considers the alternative, that ethically and spiritually, Hospice Care can actually be said to get in the way of natural death, thus the reason he argues justifiable suicide (18).

The word “euthanasia” comes from the Greek words Eu, meaning “good” and Thanatos meaning “death” or “good death”. We legally euthanize animals. United States citizens should certainly have the same right.  Working in the veterinary field and participating in euthanasia, we know that it is a more peaceful way to end your life. Patients are given an overdose of intravenous anesthesia and they fall into a permanent sleep. Oregon, Washington, and Vermont have this law in place.  Oregon was the first to pass into law on October 27, 1997, and individuals have since moved there to become eligible (Torr 18). California, Delaware, and North Carolina have introduced bills into Congress modeled after versions of Oregon’s law. In Oregon’s law the patient is given a prescription for Vesparax and Pentobarbital, both powerful sedatives, and death occurs somewhere between five minutes to nine-and-a-half hours. Most people lose and never regain consciousness in five to twenty-five minutes. The terminally ill can request this prescription and fifteen days later they would need to request it again. A 48-hour waiting period must follow (patientsrights.org). This is in contrast to people taking their lives in painful and undignified ways.

In the Netherlands they have given lethal doses of Morphine intravenously once it was legalized in 2001.  They allow patients with dementia and in comas to receive what is considered “non-voluntary euthanasia”. In these cases, the burden of proof falls on the physician to show that the patient would have requested it were they competent or capable. However, if found unable to prove, they are prosecuted for murder (Rosenfeld 129).

The first world conference of ‘Right to Die Societies’ took place in 1976.  They concluded that all people should have the right to decide about their own life and death. Additionally, living wills are to be recognized as both a human right and a legal document (euthanasia.procon.org).

Medical professionals assert that the dying want to continue to control their lives as much as possible. Doctors have a hard time because they became physicians to find cures and help people live (Kung 22).

Criminal law must prevent permission for physician-assisted suicide from becoming pressure towards dying. Attorneys are tasked with creating legal clarity for all involved: patients, their families, and their medical care teams. They must also ensure regulation, safeguarding of life, relief from suffering, and criteria for medical diagnoses (Kung 24).

In speaking with terminally ill patients and their family members for their viewpoints, we find that most people would take this option, were it legal in their state.  In most cases, anyone who has watched someone suffer from a disease like cancer would wish this as an option for their loved ones.  “After losing both of my grandparents within a week of each other, who were both suffering from terminal illnesses, and both ready to go, I think it should be legal in all states” (Barker)! “If we have lived a meaningful life, and then are lying in the bed twenty-four hours a day, being maintained by medications-that is no quality of life” (Ewing). “I think we should be allowed to choose our end date if we are terminally ill. I stood by my dad’s side and watched him die. At the end you lose your dignity because to the people in the medical field, this is their job. To the family that is our dad” (Freiberg). “Bart’s grandmother fell suddenly ill and was suffering and the doctor ordered an unusually high dose of morphine. We had a hard time finding a nurse who would administer it. In the end, as we pleaded with her doctor to stop her suffering, he administered the injection himself. We were eternally grateful” (Carroll).

This writer feels, the same would apply to those of who have worked in elderly care or cared for an ill person without their faculties. After seeing a once brilliant person, all alone, spend most of their day in bed soiling themselves, the kindest thing we can do is allow them to expire.

 “Euthanasia supporters enjoy life and love living, and their respect for the sanctity of life is as strong as anybody’s.” “Yet, they are willing, if their dying is distressing to them, to forgo a few weeks or a few days at the end and leave under their own control” (Torr 22).

SCOTUS (Supreme Court of the United States) said that competent adults have a right to refuse medical care under the liberty of the due process clause. The issue in Vacco v. Quill is directed towards the terminally ill and controlling their death. “The strongest challenge might be brought if a state law prevented the provision of pain-relieving medication that likely would hasten a terminally ill patient’s death. Similarly a challenge might succeed if brought by a person who’s [sic] pain was so severe that it could not be relieved by medication” (Aaron).

Death with Dignity National Center is a 501(c) (3) non-partisan, nonprofit organization leading the advocacy in the Death with Dignity Movement. Their mission statement is simply “Respect the will of the people” (deathwithdignity.org).

In opposition to this law, Theologians objections state that it is nothing more than legal suicide and their beliefs tell them that because Jesus suffered on the Cross in death, so shall we suffer. They say only God can take away life. In many religions and cultures it is considered a sin (Torr 21). “Legally, I think it is fine-morally, I am not so sure because it is still taking your life into your own hands” (Beers).

Other opponents say that it is or can be used for convenience. They conclude that we would not have to care for our elderly or provide them with costly benefits. It is also assumed that people could use this to obtain full and/or early inheritances­­_that they would use this as a means to have the entire inheritance without spending it on the elderly loved ones care (euthanasia.procon.org).

This is a hard thing to police and determine who should or should not fall into the legal or acceptable category. Currently, the law states that people who are given less than six months to live, qualify for physician-assisted suicide. Physicians do not have to be present.  Family members do not have to be notified. Complications most commonly include regurgitation.

To support this paper, religious leaders, the terminally ill and their loved ones, healthcare professionals, and political arguments for and against this law were examined. Many religious people oppose suicide and there are concrete reasons why lawmakers are both for and against the Death with Dignity movement. A close friend with stage four colon cancer wants the right to die on her terms. She has already met with a counselor who does “Legacy Work” and helped her create her advanced directives, particularly concerning her son. She knows the reality of her disease and wants to be prepared. When the unfortunate time comes, she hopes that she can choose to not endure prolonged suffering (Bradford).

In conclusion, we find that the majority of citizens feel that with medical advancements being what they are today, we should be able to ethically grant a dying person’s wish. To ignore their wishes due to reasons such as religion, is an inappropriate and old argument. Had this been in the days when medicine was not even available, we would not even have this topic to argue and debate.

 

Works Cited

Aaron, Jacqueline. “Constitutional Protection for Medical Care Decisions.” Message to the author. 10 Apr. 2015. E-mail.

Barker, Melissa. Personal interview. 6 Apr. 2015.

Beers, Angie. Personal interview. 6 Apr. 2015.

Bradford, Jennifer. Personal interview. 10 Apr. 2015.

Carroll, L. A. Personal interview. 23 Apr. 2015

Deathwithdignity.org. Death with Dignity National Center, 2015. Web. 27 Apr. 2015.See similar documents

Euthanasia.procon.org. Euthanasia Pros & Cons of Controversial Issues, 2015. Web. 2 Apr. 2015.

Ewing, Ashley. Personal interview. 6 Apr. 2015.

Freiberg, Anna. Personal interview. 6 Apr. 2015.

Kung, Hans, Walter Jens. Dying with Dignity. New York. Continuum. 1998. Print.

Patientsrightscouncil.org. Patients’ Rights Council, 2013. Web. 28 Apr 2015.

Rosenfeld, Barry. Assisted Suicide and the Right to Die. Washington. American Psychological Association. 2004. Print.

Torr, James D. Euthanasia Opposing Viewpoints. San Diego. Greenhaven Press, Inc. 2000. Print.See similar documents