Death With Dignity Analysis

“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

“In the 20 years that Oregon’s Death with Dignity Law has been on the books, 1,749 patients have been prescribed lethal medications, and only 64% of them (1,127) used them to die, according to state data. Last year, Oregon doctors prescribed 206 lethal medications, 133 of which were reported used by patients” (Portland Press Herald). This statistic shows that not all patients who are prescribed the drugs, use them to end their life. Gale states, “The three most frequently cites reasons for requesting suicide were: a decreasing ability to participate in activities that made life enjoyable, loss of autonomy and loss of dignity. Eva Thompson, a 57 year-old Camden, Maine resident with stage 4 colon cancer, who is in favor of physician assisted

The Death with Dignity National Center says that, “By adding a voluntary option to the continuum of end-of-life care, these laws give patients dignity, control, and peace of mind during their final days with family and loved ones.”

The Death with Dignity Act, also known as the Right-to-Die Bill, allows terminally-ill adults grant their wishes to hasten their death in some states where it is legalized. These patients that are mentally capable of making their own decisions have the right to voluntarily request and receive a prescription medication to end their suffering sooner. Oregon, Washington, Vermont, and California are the only states that practice the Death with Dignity Act. Oregon voters approved Death with Dignity Act in 1994 and went into effect in 1997. Washington implemented the same act in 2008 followed by Vermont in 2013 which is the first state to pass through legislative process. In order for patients to use prescriptions from their physicians for self administration of lethal medications, patients must meet multiple requirements. Death with Dignity National Center requires patients to be an adult who are eighteen years of age or older, a resident of one of the three legalized states, capable to make and communicate health care decisions, and patients must be diagnosed with a terminal illness that will soon lead to death within six months (Death with Dignity National Center). After all these requirements have been met, patients will be eligible to request lethal prescriptions from a licensed physician. To receive a prescription, the prescribing physician and a consulting physician must agree to another multiple set of conditions. Both physicians must agree with each other to an appropriate diagnosis, determine whether patients are capable of health decisions, patients must also produce a written request to both physicians, patients must pass all psychological examination, prescribing physician must inform patients other alternatives, and last, but not least, patients’ next-of-kin could be notified about the prescription request. These protocols are to be met to provide patient comfort and avoid disaster. The Death

Assisted suicide is a rather controversial issue in contemporary society. When a terminally ill patient formally requests to be euthanized by a board certified physician, an ethical dilemma arises. Can someone ethically end the life of another human being, even if the patient will die in less than six months? Unlike traditional suicide, euthanasia included multiple individuals including the patient, doctor, and witnesses, where each party involved has a set of legal responsibilities. In order to understand this quandary and eventually reach a conclusion, each party involved must have their responsibilities analyzed and the underlying guidelines of moral ethics must be investigated. Even though assisted suicide was not discussed throughout the sixteen to eighteen hundreds, ethical philosophers investigated the roots of human morals in an attempt to create an overarching rule that would help determine if “death with dignity” is morally justified.

The documentary, A Death of One’s Own, explores the end of life complexities that many terminal disease patients have to undergo in deciding on dying and dignity. It features three patients, their families, and caregivers debating the issue of physician-assisted suicide or pain relief than may speed up death. One character, Jim Witcher has ALS and knows the kind of death he is facing and wants to control its timing. Kitty Rayl is suffering from terminal cancer and wants to take advantage of her state’s Death with Dignity Act and take medication to terminate her life. Ricky Tackett, on the other hand, has liver failure and together with his family and caregiver agrees on terminal sedation to relieve his delirium and pain.

The dying patient no longer has quality of life, they have lost their independence, are lonely, are forced to endure inevitable pain, are publicly humiliated, are suffering immensely, and are forced to watch their loved ones grieve because of them. It is an innate Constitutional Right to choose how to die, since we all will die. There comes a point when the poking and prodding becomes too much, when the patient wants to just die in silence in the loving arms of their

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. However, there is hope of a peaceful death for these patients that exists in a controversial law being considered by many states throughout the country. It is known as the Death with Dignity Act. This law gives terminally ill patients the option of ending their own life in a painless manner at a time and place of their choosing by

“Death with dignity is a human right: to retain control until the very end and, if the quality of your life is too poor, to decide to end your suffering; the dignity comes from exercising the choice.” says Jason Barber, whose wife, Kathleen Barber, died in his arms. He had one question in mind when she died. What was he going to say if someone asked him how she died? Whether she went peacefully? He decided to tell people that his wife died in peace, without any pain or suffering. But that was a lie. She suffered from torturous cancer and she died with pain and discomfort, no matter how much pain killer was given to her. What solution could be offered to the suffering woman and to her loving husband? What if I told you that there is a way in which no one would have to suffer to death? A way that helps people die with dignity and, a way that provides a peaceful, smooth death? This miraculous way is called ‘euthanasia’.

The Death with Dignity policy has been around for over 20 years and has dated back and argued about since the early 1990s. It was officially made a law in Oregon in 1994 with 51% in favor and officially went into effect in 1997 (Oregon 's Public Health System). Although this implementation was delayed by a legal injunction. On October 27, 1997, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals lifted the injunction. In November 1997, a quantity asking Oregon voters to annul the Death with Dignity Act was placed on the general election ballot (Oregon 's Public Health System). The people of Washington approved their policy in 2008 and it was executed in 2009 after no

Imagine you have difficulty waking up, trying to fight the constant sensation of drowsiness with the little life you have left. When you wake, you struggle through the haze of confusion to finally realize that you are in the same monochromatic, secluded room you’ve been in for the past two months or possibly two years. No family in sight. No pets. No fireplace awaiting you. Instead, you lay in bed with cold hands and feet, overwhelmed by the dozens of cords stemming from your body to machines, and the fatigue and pain that you have fallen prisoner to. You are left waiting in agony for however long it may take your body to finally shut off. Now, if you could escape all this torture, and choose how and when your life could end, would you choose to take advantage of it? The Death with Dignity Act bill should be passed in Massachusetts to give individuals this option.

Death with Dignity is an organization whose mission is to “promote Death with Dignity laws based on the model Oregon Death with Dignity Act, both to provide an option for dying individuals and to stimulate nationwide improvements in the end-of-life career.” (“Home-Death”) Dr. Jack Kevorkian’s practices had a lasting impact on assisted suicide laws, still affecting us today. (“Assisted Suicide”) However, with new modern techniques, suicide should be discouraged, causing suicide and unnatural death rates to drastically decrease because “killing for WHATEVER reason CANNOT be

The argument that I am analyzing is found in Philippa Foot’s article Euthanasia. This specific section starts at the beginning on page 88. This argument starts once she talks about the true meaning of Euthanasia and the difficulty in how people see or perceive it. In Foot 's article, she wants to prove that an act of euthanasia is morally permissible, as long as you’re performing it for the right cause or reasons. Foot defines euthanasia as "a matter of opting for death for the good of the one who is to die." (Foot, p.100) She further justifies this argument by stating that as long as we put into consideration the interests of the person involved and only the benefits of that person that euthanasia can morally acknowledge. I believe that it

With most websites that have a definition for the right to die, there are a few that don’t have a definition. It is still a relatively new and there is a right to die moment that allows terminally ill patients to take their life. This particular organization called Hemock Society which mission is to also have laws for physicians-assisted suicide. As of April 24, 2017 there are only six states that allow the death with dignity. The first state to legalize physicians-assisted suicide is Oregon and the second is

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.