Dying With Dignity
On Tuesday, March 24, an elderly Oregon woman, acting with the aid of a doctor, dosed
herself with potent chemicals and died. The woman had lived with breast cancer for
more than 20 years. By all accounts her final hours were private and peaceful, as she
became one of the first people in American history to end her life lawfully with the aid of a physician (Oregonian A1).
She was able to end her life peacefully due to controversial legislation passed in her state. The Death with Dignity Act was passed by the state of Oregon in 1994. It allows physicians to prescribe a lethal dose of medication so that a terminally ill patient can end his or her life. The requirements set forth by the state statute are as follows: “An adult who is capable, is a resident of Oregon, and has been determined by the attending physician and consulting physician to be suffering from a terminal disease, and who has voluntarily expressed his or her wish to die, may make a written request for medication for the purpose of ending his or her life in a humane and dignified manner” (Death with Dignity Act 569.32) Therefore, it is of great importance that the Death with Dignity Act remains law. It sets a president for the United States. If the act continues as enacted law then all other states can pass similar legislation that will end the suffering of terminally ill patients. All terminally ill patients should have this right. Moreover, the physician assisted suicide law stood up to its opposition.
This law took many years and withstood tremendous opposition in order to be passed. In October of 1997 The United States Supreme Court denied a hearing brought forth by opponents of the law. This allowed physician assisted suicide to go into effect. The State of Oregon has since won every opposing court case up to the federal level. Recently the former attorney general John Croft opposed the act in 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. Ashcroft issued a directive that physicians could not prescribe federally controlled substances for life terminating purposes. Ashcroft based his argument on the regulation in the federal Controlled Substances Act that says drugs must be prescribed for a ligament medical purpose (23). Moreover, Ashcroft is just protesting for the conservatives that he is employed by and has no real constitutional evidence and to ...
... middle of paper ...
...de extend beyond one another, it is a perfect design for a flawless world but our world is exceedingly flawed. Although the law sets out to relieve is has the ability to hurt. If all doctors could be trusted, corporations did not demonstrate their greed, insurance companies had never acted in an inhumane way, and malpractice suits were not on the docket of every court it is unlikely that physician assisted suicide would ever be opposed. Our laws attempt to protect us from all these imperfections and when it comes to Oregon’s Death with Dignity Act the law fails to protect us. The consequences outweigh the resolution.
Works Cited:
Ashcroft, John. The Federal Register, (2001):56607-56608.
Death with Dignity Act of 1994. Pub. 1995 c.3 § 2.01; 1999 c.423 § 2.
Humphrey, Derek. Dying With Dignity: Understanding Euthanasia. New York: Carol
Publishing Corp., 1992.
Jeffery, Alvin P. “A perfect suicide” The Oregonian 24 Mar. 1997:A1
Quill, Timothy. Death and Dignity: Making Choices and Taking Charge. New York:
Norton and Company Inc., 1993.
Sixth Annual Report. Oregon: Department of Human Services, 2004.
Brittany Maynard was a twenty nine year old woman who married her husband just a year before she passed away. Before she passed, she was diagnosed with a terminal disease, brain cancer. Her doctors gave her six months to live and using treatment might shorten her already short amount of time that she had left to live. Maynard and her family uprooted from their home in San Francisco, California and moved to Portland, Oregon. In Oregon, she planned to get new physicians and after attending appointments, she could be prescribed a lethal pill that would end her life. She wanted to live her last six months happily, and she didn’t want to suffer and have her family watch her suffer. (Death) She wanted to be able to end her life on her own terms, and not when the cancer says that she had to. She received a lot of unkind criticism for her choice. Death with Dignity Act, or the use of assisted suicide is morally justifiable, especially in Brittany Maynard’s
Sloss, David. "The Right to Choose How to Die: A Constitutional Analysis of State Laws Prohibiting Physician-Assisted Suicide." Stanford Law Review. 48.4 (1996): 937-973. Web. 2 March 2015.
There are many legal and ethical issues when discussing the topic of physician-assisted suicide (PAS). The legal issues are those regarding numerous court cases over the past few decades, the debate over how the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution comes into play, and the legalization vs. illegalization of this practice. The 14th Amendment states, “nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws” (U.S. Const. amend. XIV, §1). PAS in the past has been upheld as illegal due to the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment of the constitution, but in recent years this same 14th amendment is also part of the reasoning for legalizing PAS, “nor shall any State deprive any person of…liberty” (U.S. Const. amend. XIV, §1). The ethical issues surrounding this topic include a patient’s autonomy and dignity and if PAS should be legalized everywhere. This paper is an analysis of the PAS debate and explores these different issues using a specific case that went to the supreme courts called Washington et al. v. Glucksberg et al.
As any individual can imagine, there is a lot of suffering and pain in most, if not all hospital settings. At times, no amount of medication or experimental treatment can change an individual’s mind on the quality of their life, such that the only way to end their suffering is to die, hence physician assisted suicide. Defined as a patient taking their own life with the help of a physician, this assisted suicide practice is highly controversial and illegal in most but California, Montana, Oregon, Washington and Vermont. Putting the law aside, the morality of the practice itself is still questioned.
The DWDA aims to provide qualified patients with an alternative choice in their end of life care. Comfort care, hospice care, and pain control are still viable and widely used by patients as end-of-life treatment, but with the passing of this act, the citizens of Oregon made it clear that they wanted a more definite, controlled solution to any pain or suffering people might experience in their final months of living (The Oregon Death With Dignity Act, 1994). To qualify, patients must be at least 18 years of age, a resident of Oregon, mentally competent in his/her ability to make and communicate informed health decisions, and diagnosed with a fatal illness that will likely lead to death within six months. Only these individuals may begin the process of requesting the medication.
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
“On October 27, 1997 Oregon enacted the Death with Dignity Act which allows terminally-ill Oregonians to end their lives through the voluntary self-administration of lethal medications, expressly prescribed by a physician for that purpose.” (The Oregon Health Authority, 2010). Physician assisted suicide can be constructed to have reasonable laws which still protect against its abuse and the value of human life. Recent Oregon and U.K. laws show that you can craft reasonable laws that prevent abuse and still protect the value of human life. When one thinks of suicide, we think of a person who takes their own life. But in physician-assisted suicide, this is not the case. “In physician-assisted suicide, the patient self...
Sarasohn begins his article by acknowledging how Ashcroft valiantly takes the task of confronting the voters of Oregon to contemplate euthasasia during a week when anthrax and 9/11 were pressing issues for Ashcroft. In the article, Ashcroft states how using federally controlled substances, for the purposes of assisting suicide, violates the Controlled Substances Act (Sarasohn 8). The author states broadly how Ashcroft throws out the Oregon euthanasia law, not specifying the effect his challenge had on the law. It is important to note that Ashcroft’s reversal of the 1997 Supreme Court ruling does not prohibit medically assisted suicide in Oregon. However, it does forbid the usage of federally controlled drugs to kill a patient. The conclusion of the article talks about the Bush administration commending the decision and how Ashcroft sent out a DEA administrator to implement the new ...
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....
the decision to end their lives often turn to their physicians for advice. However, studies indicate that many physicians are unwilling to provide their assistance in suicide because it conflicts with their ethical beliefs and because it is illegal. The legalization of PAS is a sensitive, yet complicated, topic which is becoming more and more popular with America’s aging population and the terminally ill patients. PAS is a social issue which is here to stay. The legalization of PAS is continually being debated all over the United States and offers a potential for abuse. In 1994, PAS laws of Washington and New York were challenged in federal court and declared unconstitutional. Physician assisted suicide should not be legalized in any state.
In current society, legalizing physician assisted suicide is a prevalent argument. In 1997, the Supreme Court recognized no federal constitutional right to physician assisted suicide (Harned 1) , which defines suicide as one receiving help from a physician by means of a lethal dosage (Pearson 1), leaving it up to state legislatures to legalize such practice if desired. Only Oregon and Washington have since legalized physician assisted suicide. People seeking assisted suicide often experience slanted judgments and are generally not mentally healthy. Legalization of this practice would enable people to fall victim to coercion by friends and family to commit suicide. Also, asking for death is unfair to a doctor’s personal dogma. Some argue that society should honor the freedom of one’s choice to take his own life with the assistance of a physician; however, given the reasoning provided, it is in society’s best interest that physician assisted suicide remain illegal. Physician assisted suicide should not be legalized because suicidal people experience distorted judgments resulting in not being mentally equipped to make such a decision, people who feel they are a burden to their family may choose death as a result, and physicians should not have to go against their personal doctrines and promises.
February 18). Legalized Physician-Assisted Suicide in Oregon - The First Years' Experience. The New England Journal of Medicine, 340(7). Retrieved June 26, 2011, from http://www.nejm.org
Physician-assisted suicide is legal in three of the fifty states in America: Oregon, Montana, and Washington. Getting approval for physician-assisted suicide in Oregon is a long process with many guidelines and restrictions. The patient must be terminally ill, with little hope for treatment and less than six months to live. It is required that they are a resident of Oregon, and at least 18 years of age. They must also be able to communicate their own wishes. Once the initial decision is made by the patient, he or she must make two oral requests for a prescription of lethal drugs to their attending physician, or the doctor that has initial care of that patient. These two requests should be made no less than 15 days apart, and a the patient must sign a written request in the presence of at least two witnesses. Once the forms are signed, the attending physician, as well as another consulting physician, will review the patient’s case and verify the diagnosis and prognosis. If either of the two physicians believes the patient is being influenced by a psychological or psychiatric disease, they must refer the patient for a psychological examination. If the patient is declared mentally fit to make this decision, the attending physician has an obligation to offer alternatives to the Death with Dignity Act, including hospice care, comfort, and pain management. Should the patient decide to proceed with physician-assisted suicide, the attending physician is required to recommend that the patient notify their next-of-kin of their request for lethal drugs, although it is not required (Oregon 1).
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.
This has been shown in the fact that 1545 terminally ill patients have been prescribed the medication and only 991 have actually ingested it, thus ending their lives (Oregon Health Authority, 2016). Not only has the process of receiving the prescription been done with ease, but no individual has been required to ingest it and end their life, even though they may have already made a request for it. The DWDA has actually defied many doubts including the statement; the law could create states which have enacted the law to become “a destination for terminally ill patients seeking to die with doctor-prescribed drugs. In a decade of experience with the law, though, no such abuses have shown up” (Sandeen, 2013). Because of this false idea, some people still do not agree with the DWDA, however, because of the lack of evidence individuals are more likely to accept and support the act.