Argumentative Essay: A Death With Dignity

A physician must understand that when it comes to deciding to withhold or withdraw life sustaining treatment it is ultimately the patient’s decision unless the patient is not competent enough to make this choice. I believe that a person can lose their life at any point. Death is certain and no one can run from it. In my opinion, a patient’s autonomy is of utmost importance anytime during healthcare however the physician can name some recommendations of what would be the best option for the patient. When it comes to patients they deserve to be treated with respect and ultimately be treated as an end not as a means to an end.

You've sat in your hospital bed for at least three months now, and the pain and boredom is starting to become even more torturous than you could have imagined. The pain that you are experiencing on a day-to-day basis is excruciating; a normal, everyday procedure like using the restroom or getting something to eat is a long, drawn out, and painful ordeal. All of the doctors that you've talked to agree that you are going to die soon from the disease that has infested your body, but even six months sounds like an excruciatingly long amount of time, especially when all you have to occupy your time is lie in a bed painfully, waiting it out. Your family and friends are already distraught by the news; they already know that you are on the brink

In some states a terminally ill person is given the option whether or not they want a physician assisted suicide to end their life. In “A Death of One’s Own”, they follow the lives of three people who are terminally ill and are closing in on the end of their life. One of those being a man named Jim Witcher. Jim lives in Louisiana, where physician assisted suicide is frowned upon. Jim is slowly becoming unable to do things that he used to do, do to ALS. This puts a lot of stress on him and his wife Susie. Kitty Rayl was diagnosed with uterine cancer, she lives in Oregon and has the option to have physician assisted suicide if she pleases. Oregon is one of a few states where this is allowed. Ricky Tackett was suffering from liver failure. His wife, Rose and his doctors had to make the decision to take away his water and nutrients.

Choosing to die with the assistance of a physician is a much debated controversial issue in the states. Assisted suicide is where a patient with a terminal disease choose to take their life to relieve their suffering, sometimes with the aid of a physician, and is legal in only five states. Assisted suicide is “legal in Washington, Oregon, California, Vermont and Bernalillo County,New Mexico(Death with).” This option should be available to patients in all states, because terminally ill patients should have the choice to end their suffering if their pain becomes unbearable. Terminal patients should be able to die on their own terms.

According to Ullmann-Margalit (51) while dealing with the subject the agony of doubt deliberates that it is among the most confusing issues to deal with. Most people do not want to die, at least not now, and the debate of holding on to the inevitable and that of letting go heats up. Questions arise concerning the social, religious and ethical factors that have to be taken into play while considering end-of-life or right-to-die and thus bringing complexity to an otherwise easy decision. But the most crucial question to ask is: are those in support of the right-to-die justified in their movement? This will be the question that will be addressed in this argumentative essay.

The Death With Dignity Law was passed in Oregon on November 8th, 1994. The Death With Dignity Law gives terminal patients a chance to die on their own terms. It gives patients aid in dying if the suffering becomes unbearable. Since Oregon was the only state that had the Death With Dignity Act in effect at the time, it has caused American citizens, like Brittany Maynard, to move to Oregon to receive the treatment. As a result of Oregon’s law, other states have given thought to passing the law. Washington, for example,

Furthermore, there is one specific state that has approved this assistance with a few regulations in mind. The State of Oregon, which also happens to have been the first state in the United States to legalize a death with dignity act. The very first act that they made was on November 8th, 1994, but as all other cases do, it contained specific requirements from The State of Oregon for patients who wished to participate. They state only permitted patients who had a terminal illness. Specifically an illness that results with their death in a matter of a few months left of being alive. Other individuals who simply wanted to end their life are not permitted to proceed in this act. Without a reasonable explanation, there was simply no need for

In 1983 twenty-five-year old Nancy Cruzan was driving when her car careened off the road and flipped over. She was thrown out of her car into a ditched and was left lying there unconscious. Her body was victim to its surroundings and to fate. When she was found by paramedics, she was unconscious and not breathing. They concluded that she had not been breathing for at least fifteen minutes, but through the miracles of modern technology she was revived into a vegetative state (Gumm). This began a long crusade for Nancy Cruzan and her family and only added to the enduring debate about euthanasia. Should a person be able to control when to end his life? I believe that a person should control when life ends while facing a terminal illness or

Brittany Maynard brought up a good argument when she said, “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?” (Slotnik). Brittany Maynard was a young woman who found out she had a terminal brain cancer and ended up becoming the public face for the right to die act. Many people believe that this act should not be in place, but in taking this act away people lose their right to choose when they want to die. People may argue the fact that doctors have access the drug with assisted suicide is very unsettling; however, the doctors are professionals who are trusted with this drug. This act is important because it gives the terminally ill one last independent decision before they lose themselves. Taking away the act means taking their free will away from them.

In 1997 Oregon passed the Physical Assisted Suicide (PAS) called the Death with Dignity. PAS would provide terminal ill patients who desired to end their life with access to a lethal dose of medication. In order for a patient to get access to the lethal dose of medicine in Oregon: they must be 18 years or older, able to understand, verbalize the consequences, and be a resident of the state. Terminal ill patients have been medically diagnosed of living six month or less. If a patient in Oregon wants to commit suicide there would be a 15-day waiting period between the doctor’s agreement and the issuance of the prescription (The Times). PAS is not only legal in Oregon, but also in Washington, Vermont, New Mexico, and Montana. More than 70% of Californians support the legalization of PAS and no bill has been introduced since 2007. American culture has been emphasized that citizens of the United States have the rights and freedoms to make personal decisions. PAS needs to be legalized in California so terminally ill patients suffering from physical and emotional pain legally end their life.

As George Santayana says, “Our dignity is not what we do, but what we understand.” Terminally ill patients should have the choice to end their life with dignity, rather than to suffer. Not only do the patients suffer, but so does the family as well. Patients diagnosed with terminal illness have a lot of pain, doctors understand what they go through, and it is the patient's right to choose.

In the State of California it is illegal to aid and abet suicide but not illegal to attempt self harm or suicide (California Penal Code 401.). California Civil Code 1024, (NCSL, 2015), states that there is no privilege if a licensed clinician believes that the client is dangerous to themselves or to others. Therefore in the State of California, if a client is believed to be at risk of themselves then the confidentiality of the client is not protected.

    America’s founding fathers declared that every person had certain inalienable rights they are born with and cannot be separated from. They listed citizens’ rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Today's government must decide if a right to life equates to a right to death.

Most adults diagnosed with cancer undergo years of treatment in attempts to cure that cancer. However, sometimes these treatments may not work, or the cancer is found too late in a patient to be stopped, and a patient’s cancer can be determined terminal, which means that the cancer can not be cured and will lead to death. If cancer is determined terminal, end-of-life care can be administered patients to control lasting pains, including shortness of breath, nausea, and constipation. However, this treatment does not cure the cancer, and will not prevent death in a terminally ill cancer patient. In some cases, patients decide that receiving end-of-life treatment is not worth it if the treatment does not prevent death. Terminally ill cancer patients may also continue to experience unbearable suffering, despite end-of-life treatments, as it is not always effective. These factors may push some terminally ill cancer patients to request to be actively euthanized. Active euthanasia is the merciful ending of a patient’s life through a single act, such as an injection. Terminally ill cancer patients should have the right to determine if they are actively euthanized. However, only patients who consider their suffering unbearable should have the right to be euthanized.

Voluntary euthanasia, or physician-assisted suicide, has been a controversial issue for many years. It usually involves ending a patient’s life early to relieve their illness. Most of the controversy stemmed from personal values like ethics or religion. The euthanasia debate puts a huge emphasis on what doctors should do for their patients and how much a person’s life is worth. Supporters of euthanasia primarily focus on cost and pain alleviation. Opponents of euthanasia tend to focus on morality. Whether euthanasia is legal or not could significantly affect future generations’ attitudes about death. Euthanasia should be legalized nationally because it helps patients that could be in unimaginable pain, offers more options for more people, and it is relatively inexpensive compared to the alternatives.