The Death With Dignity Act

According to the American Medical Association (1996), physician-assisted suicide (PAS) occurs when a physician facilitates a patient’s death by providing either the means or the information necessary to aid in the patient performing the life-ending act. PAS has had a long and controversial history dating back to the ancient Greeks and Romans. They believed that there was no reason to prolong life if continued pain and suffering was the only prognosis. The term euthanasia, in fact, stems from the Greek meaning "a good death". It was not until Hippocrates and his Hippocratic Oath, cautioning against deadly medicine towards patients, that a different view was seen.

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.

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 the case study, Death, Duty, and Dignity, there are several central characters ' experiences to consider including Theresa, Ted, Peter and Faith, as well as Mary. Theresa went to conferences and wrote papers around 1994 when Oregon was having a debate on whether or not to pass a Death with Dignity Act. At the time, Theresa spoke against physician-assisted suicide because she felt that this form of help is allowing people to do what they want when it is time to die. This is not anything that Catholics view. Eventually her father, Ted, utilized physician-assisted suicide. He contacted her saying that he had grade IV glioblastoma multiforme, a deadly form of brain cancer. Ted had brain surgery to remove the tumor and had radiotherapy to increase his chance of survival. Well, unfortunately he began to have severe headaches and doctors told him that he had six months or less to live. Ted wanted their family physician to assist him in speeding up the process of his death because he did not want to go through the pain and forget who his family was. Theresa has a duty to support her father Shortly after this, Theresa was asked to present on this issue of physican assisted suicide at the conference of Death, Duty, and Dignity.

left alone by their doctors when the suffering becomes unbearable and use of the law is requested. “The most significant impact of the death with dignity law in Oregon has been to improve the care for all dying patients, by increasing awareness among doctors, allowing an open and honest conversation, improving pain management and palliative care, and providing patients with a sense of control and peace of mind.” Doctors are being aware of the causes and the good tis law really is, it is highly improving so many things dealing with life and health. A patient who is suffering intolerably needs the assistance from someone who will be there to help them in their end of life decision.

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

Once people are diagnosed to be terminally-ill, they only have a certain amount of time to live, and they know that as their disease progresses that they will only get worse and worse and they will eventually lose themselves. These people should have a choice as of whether they want to live out those dreadful days that lie ahead of them, or to simply end their lives peacefully, without any pain. Physician- Assisted Suicide or Euthanasia allows people to make the decision. Although the end-result of both procedures is the same, the technique differs slightly. In Physician- Assisted Suicide, the physician injects the lethal substances, and with Euthanasia, the doctor only provides a lethal amount of a drug to the patient and they ingest it themselves. Physician-Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia should be legalized as a federal law so that the patients have the right to decide whether they would like to end their lives when in a terminally-ill state.

After, reviewing these three positions I agree with Oregon’s Death with Dignity Act. I believe that patients who are experiencing such great amounts of suffering should be given the option to a doctor assisted death. My reasoning behind this is that any individual who is not suffering does not understand what terminally ill patients must face on a day-to-day basis. Imagine yourself finding out you have less than six months to live, you have come to peace with the fact that you are terminally ill, your family has all said there goodbyes, you don’t want to cause a financial bind when you pass away, and with every passing day your suffering becomes significantly greater. You lose the ability to stand for long period of time that then leads to

The Death With Dignity Act (DWDA) was passed in the state of Oregon on November 8, 1994, and allowed competent, terminally ill patients 18 years old or older and were also state residents to acquire a prescription of barbiturates from a doctor to end their own life when their anguish became intolerable.6 208 individuals died under the DWDA. 36% of patients who received the lethal prescription never took them.2 This insinuates that patients dealing with immense suffering from a terminal illness at least sought control over the situation.

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

Some positive impacts in the death and dignity act according to apecsec.org would be that it would alleviate the patient’s suffering of the terminal illness. It is not humane to allow them to stand the intolerable pain. Another positive impact on the target population is to aid them in dying painlessly. The greatest impact I see is we allow the patient who is going through this to see their value of death and life. Keeping a life support method against the wishes of the patient, can be seen as unethical. (Death, 2014.)

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.

Is the role of a medical professional to ensure the health and comfort of their patients, or to help them end their lives? Since Dr. Kevorkian assisted in the suicide of Janet Adkins in 1990, physician-assisted suicide (PAS) has been one of the most controversial issues in the medical field today. While some view it as an individual right, others view it as an unethical issue that goes against medical ethics and religious values. Mr. H. M. is an elderly man who is diagnosed with terminal lung cancer and no chance of improvement. After excruciating pain and suffering, he has decided to request physician-assisted death in his home state of Oregon. Oregon’s Death with Dignity Act (DDA) states that terminally ill patients are allowed to use

Dr. Jack Kevorkian was charged with second-degree murder and served an eight year prison sentence. (Fridstein. 1). This accomplished physician graduated from the University of Michigan with an impressively high IQ. He was a writer, inventor, movie producer and classical composer. (Kevorkian). Why would a man so intelligent and successful end up in jail for murder? Well believe or not he purposely challenged the legal system in a one man crusade to ignite a national discussion on the subjects of assisted suicide, Euthanasia and one’s constitutional right to choose. Euthanasia is a medical procedure that involves a person being induced with a soothing, relaxing medicine that allows them a peaceful passing. Dr. Kevorkian’s attorney, Geoffrey Fieger, summed it up best when he said, "We’re just talking about the right not of children and not of mentally incompetent people but the right of mentally competent adults to make decisions about their own bodies as to how much suffering they have to undergo.” (Kevorkian). Euthanasia is not for people experiencing temporary illness or unhappiness. It’s for people who are imprisoned by their own unbearable physical pain for the rest of their lives with no way out. Is it fair to not give those people a choice? Is it fair to make them slowly deteriorate while losing their dignity? I think not. That is why I support euthanasia being legalized, “Dying is not a crime.” (Fridstein. 1).

While trying to help someone who is considering end-of-life decision while terminally ill, or physically disabled, social workers must discuss this with them. But they have to make sure the client is in the right mind to make this decision, and that it isn’t a sudden decision and aren’t going to be an imminent threat to themselves.