Death With Dignity

In 1998, the first full year that the DWDA was in effect, 23 residents of Oregon received PAS prescriptions. Out of those 23, 15 patients died from following through with taking the medication. Between 1998 and 2007, a total of 292 deaths in Oregon have been due to PAS. The most common reasons reported for choosing this option were fear of losing their autonomy (100%), fear of losing their dignity (86%), and a decreased ability to participate in the activities that made their life enjoyable (86%) (Lachman, 2010). The majority of the patients choosing PAS

The selection I chose to read is entitled, “Death on Demand is Not Death with Dignity.” The author of this essay is Debra J. Saunders. This story is printed in San Francisco Chronicle, on pages 483-485. It is about assisted suicide is illegal in California however it is not legal in Organ.

One famous case involving death with dignity was the death of Brittany Maynard. Brittany Maynard was a 29-year-old woman who was married and everything seemed to be going good until she was diagnosed with terminal brain cancer. She was diagnosed with grade 2 Astrocytoma, a brain cancer. She was hoping to have a chance to overcome this illness, but the cancer returned, only much worse than before. The diagnosis was grade 4 astrocytoma. Only given a few months to live, she and her family decided that death with dignity was the best option. Living in California, assisted suicide was not an option. So she moved to Oregon because death with dignity is legal there. She ended her life on November 1, 2014, next to family. This case was famous because

Throughout the twentieth century, major scientific and medical advances have greatly enhanced the life expectancy of the average person. However, there are many instances where doctors can preserve life artificially. When society ponders over the idea of physician-assisted suicide, they most likely feel that the act itself would compare to murdering someone. Who really has the authority to say what is right or wrong when a loved one wants to end their life because of a terminal illness or a severe physical disability? Should Physician-assisted suicide be Legal in California to make it a euthanasia state like Oregon ? In the article titled “Nicest Lawmaker Touts Assisted Suicide,” by Clea Benson published The Bakersfield Californian in 2006, the author presents a Republican lawmaker Patty Berg, who is groom pushing a bill allowing assisted suicide be legal in California. Physician assisted suicide should be allowed to those who are terminally ill with a limited amount of time left to live, and shouldn’t be eligible for people who are young, healthy, or have plenty of time to live.

The court case of Washington vs Glucksberg decided assisted suicide was unconstitutional, in 1997. Basically, Dr. Harold Glucksberg along with four other physicians and a few terminally ill patients went to court to argue with the ban on assisted suicide. Court decision was 9-0,

One of the most controversial end-of-life decisions is “physician-assisted suicide” (PAS). This method of suicide involves a physician providing a patient, at his or her own request, with a lethal dose of medication, which the patient self-administers. The ethical acceptability and the desirability of legalization of this practice both continue to cause controversy (Raus, Sterckx, Mortier 1). Vaco v. Quill and Washington v. Glucksberg were landmark decisions on the issue of physician-assisted suicide and a supposed Constitutional right to commit suicide with another's assistance. In Washingotn v. Glucksberg, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the state of Washington's ban on physician-assisted suicide was not unconstitutional.

Brittany Maynard was one of the people to use the Death with Dignity Act in Organ and once said,“To have control of my own mind…to go with dignity is less terrifying. When I look at both options I have to die, I feel this is far more humane” (Sandeen, 2014). No matter what, we will all eventually die, but we should have the right to die as humanely as possible. The Death with Dignity Act is an end-of-life choice possibility for terminally ill patients to be given the freedom to decide for themselves what it means to die with dignity. This act allows them to die with dignity by providing them with lethal medications prescribed by a physician (The Oregon Department of Human Services, 2006). The Death with Dignity Act started to allow people with six months or less to live, the right to die in a manner and at the time of their own choosing. Also, even though modern medicine has benefited humanity greatly, it cannot completely resolve the suffering and distress that comes with the dying process, so Death with Dignity can provide a painless end-of-life choice for suffering individuals (Humphry, 2009). Although Death with Dignity is a controversial topic I feel it can be very beneficial especially since people go through a long process just to try to get the medication and the ones that get it really need it. I chose this topic because death always has been interesting to me and I one day hope to have a career

The case was appealed to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals and a panel of judges from that court heard the case and overturned the lower court’s ruling on the basis that there has never been asserted that there is a constitutional right to aid in killing yourself which was upheld by a court of final jurisdiction such as the Supreme Court. When the case was head by the entire 9th Circuit Court of Appeals they reversed the panel decision and agreed with the district court. They based their decision on the same cases as the lower court as well as the historical and societal views towards the right to die. After considering all this they concluded that through the Constitution there is a liberty interest in determining the time and manner of one’s death. They determined that there was a constitutional right to die and the state law was unconstitutional since it applied to terminally ill patients who were competent to make their own decisions and wished to end their lives. The case was appealed to the Supreme Court which after hearing arguments decided that the Constitution was not violated by the state law and found that the state had the legal right to pass such a law.

Ashcroft attempted to invalidate the Oregon Death with Dignity Act in 2001, and the judicial

On January 17, 2006 in a 6-3 vote in favor of Oregon, the court declared that Congress intended the Controlled Substance Act (CSA) to only prevent doctors engaging in elicit dug activity and not to define the states standards of medical practices. Attorney General John Ashcroft made use of the CSA to prohibit certain medical practices illegitimate, including the allowance of doctors to prescribe lethal doses of medication to terminally ill patients (the Death with Dignity Act). The court’s ruling in favor of Oregon was a legitimate decision, because Attorney General John Ashcroft did not have the authority to declare certain medical practices illegitimate.

The shift comes as a result of the evolution and development of legal doctrine over the last two decades. In 1993 the charter was still fairly new and there was not enough empirical evidence for physician assisted suicide. In 1993 the Court held that the prohibition was justifiable to protect the vulnerable groups who would be induced to commit suicide at a time of weakness. The court was also concerned about the slippery slope of Physician assisted suicide however research from other jurisdiction shows that no such abuses are supported by empirical evidence (Solomon & Watts). The court also found that the prohibition would catch people outside the class of people it is aimed to protect. A less restrictive regime could protect the vulnerable while allowing others to seek physician-assisted suicide. The courts developed a test in R v. Oakes[1986] to determine whether a violation is justified under Section 1. The test is comprised of two main steps, and a sub three part test for the 2nd step. First step requires that the law be “pressing and substantial”, 2nd step requires 1) rational connection between law and objective 2) minimal impairment of rights 3) proportionate effects (Kohsan, Jennifer). The law failed the minimal

The U.S. Supreme Court upheld court decisions in Washington and New York states that criminalized physician-assisted suicide on July 26, 1997.12 They found that the Constitution did not provide any “right to die,” however, they allowed individual states to govern whether or not they would prohibit or permit physician-assisted suicide. Without much intervention from the states individuals have used their right to refuse medical treatment resulting in controversial passive forms of euthanasia being used by patients to die with dignity such as choosing not to be resuscitated, stopping medication, drinking, or eating, or turning off respirators.9

First, Connecticut pro-choice supporters attempted to legalize the Death with Dignity Act three times since 2013, as they believe competent, terminally ill individuals in Connecticut should have the legal right to choose medically assisted death. Unfortunately, this legislation has not come to a vote in Connecticut; however, each time more people are supportive of the bill. The last Quinnipiac University Poll, completed in March 2015, has shown that by more than a 2-1 margin (63% vs. 31%), Connecticut voters support “allowing doctors to legally prescribe lethal drugs to help terminally ill patients end their lives” (C&C, Oregon, 2016). The “Death with Dignity Act” originated in Oregon, in 1997 with enough support to be the first state to pass the new law. Washington passed a similar law eleven years later, in 2008. Additionally, Colorado has been the most recent state to have this law passed on November 8, 2016. All the states have modeled after Oregon’s Death with Dignity Act. Specifically, the law states that the person must be terminally ill with less than six months to live, also be at least eighteen

Right-to-Die issues have been a major part of the government for a long time because of the extreme controversy that comes with the decision they make. We learned about the Supreme Court Case Washington v. Glucksberg earlier, but let's go into more detail about what it truly was. It states "The history of the law's treatment of assisted suicide in this country has been and continues to be one of the rejections of nearly all efforts to permit it.” Nevertheless, their decision will lead us to conclude the asserted 'right' to assistance in committing suicide is not a fundamental liberty interest protected by the Due Process Clause". (procon.org) It can be gleaned the Supreme Court did not side with laws preventing Euthanasia. When the government made statements about Euthanasia, there tended to be a mass amount of citizens to show up to show their support, either for or against. One way in which the government got involved in making a decision was in the case of Doctor Jack Kevorkian. Kevorkian killed hundreds in Michigan due to practicing Euthanasia but one of his most well known patients was Janet Adkins. Adkins had Alzheimer’s disease and consented to euthanasia. Doctor Kevorkian attached an IV to her arm. Once activated by Adkins, he inserted the lethal drug and killed her. At the time, Michigan did not have laws preventing what Kevorkian did but hence, Michigan

A state's categorical ban on physician assistance to suicide -- as applied to competent, terminally ill patients who wish to avoid unendurable pain and hasten inevitable death -- substantially interferes with this protected liberty interest and cannot be sustained." - ACLU [3]