Maggie Green
10/23/2014
Religion 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. In order for Theresa to fulfill her duties of being a daughter and to herself she needs to be honest, forgiving, and open-minded. Honest because she thought that she was opposed to physician-assisted suicide before. She
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
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.
Jack Kevorkian was a doctor who assisted terminally ill patients to commit suicide. He believed that they had the right to die in an appropriate way; to die with dignity. He therefore invented a machine (called thanatron—a Greek word for death machine) which could take away his patients’ lives painlessly and efficiently, all they had to do was to push a button and their lives would be ended by either deadly injection or carbon monoxide poisoning. There had been at least one hundred patients who tried and died in this method. Dr. Kevorkian was charged several times with murder in these deaths. Lucky for him, a judge dismissed one of his charges because there was no evidence of murder. Jury did not find him guilty either. Nevertheless, he
As the president of the British Medical Association and a professor of palliative medicine, Finley suggests that assisted dying as a personal choice has unacceptable social consequences, and defends the laws in place. She further implicates that dying patients struggle with depression depriving them of the ability to make a utilitarian decision about their own death. I question her objectivity on the matter because I feel as a palliative care physician she will naturally defend hospice care for the dying. Because I disagree with some of what she is saying she will represent my opposition: people who overlook that depriving patients of this very personal decision is in itself a violation of ethics. I will use her points to illustrate that true compassion does not end with relieving suffering and comfort care until natural death occurs.
The intent of this article is to discuss outcomes since the Death with Dignity Act was passed. It follows a Physician who has written prescriptions to assist patients with ending their life. These patients are terminally ill and within six months of dying. It discusses the stipulations of the Death with Dignity Act, statistical data, and how this act has increased the number of patients seeking hospice or palliative care. Statistics regarding patient’s reasons for seeking physician-assisted suicide are provided within the text.
Participation brings about noticeable changes of those Physicians involved. In a question asked by Baroness Finlay he inquired of Dr. de Graas if it was accurate that doctors who participate in Physician-Assisted Suicide were emotionally drained, and described it as being emotionally difficult and often they need to take time off afterwards. Dr. de Graas responded that this has been his personal experience with
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
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
Humans have the obligation to provide and care for their loved ones, whether it is their child or parent. For this reason, having the ability to take away one’s own life because of health related issues should be carefully thought out by the family and affected person. As individuals grow older, the body naturally degenerates and its effects can be very painful for the person and their family members. There are many views regarding how a family and the affected person should go about the ultimate decision of taking one’s own life. John Hardwig believes that as we grow older there is a “duty to die” before one 's illnesses would cause death, in the absence of any terminal illness and sometimes when one would prefer to live. In his essay, “Is There a Duty to Die?” he explains why he thinks that there is a need to take away one’s life to benefit others. Felicia Ackerman disagrees completely in her essay, “For Now Have I My Death: The “Duty to Die” versus the Duty to Help the Ill Stay Alive.” She believes instead that there is a, “duty to aid” and the amount of aid ultimately depends on the family circumstance. Ackerman’s view is illustrated by Jerome Groopman, MD in The Anatomy of Hope where he talks about a man named George Griffin and his success in the fight of a very serious and rare stomach cancer through family support and hope. The decision to take away one’s own life may be very challenging and complex, but there is an absolute obligation for the family to be involved
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.
Godelieva De Troyer was a depressed woman who felt gray almost all the time. When she would feel sad she would write. She would write about things to remind herself of all the activities she could do to feel happy. Being very aware of her depression, she had been in therapy starting at nineteen years old. Her parents played a very large role in her depression. She wrote, “I am confronted almost daily with the consequences of my childhood.” Being afraid of replicating her parent’s mistakes onto her own children, she married young and had two children. The marriage ended in a divorce, and the father committed suicide while the children were at a young age. She later told a psychologist that her children were “now paying for all that has happened generations earlier.” While still feeling depressed in her early fifties, something new had happened to make her feel happy again. She had a new boyfriend. She described her boyfriend to her new psychiatrist as, “He opens the wound completely, cleans it thoroughly and closes it so it can heal.” While her boyfriend made her feel happy she had gained a granddaughter after her son, Tom, had married. She tried being an attentive grandmother. Later on, her boyfriend broke up with her and she fell into dark depression again. She was not present for Toms second child, and blamed the family for not understanding her feelings. Godelieva discovered a new doctor by the name of Wim Distelman. There was a law in Belgium that permits euthanasia for patients who have an incurable illness. Distelman had euthanized over one hundred patients at this time. Later, after Godelieva discovered Distelman, an email was sent out to her children letting them know that a request had been sent out to allow her to be euthanized. Both children did not take this email very seriously. It appears the email was brushed off. Of course, the children worried about their mother, but certain measures could have been taken further. Instead being overall
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.
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
The “Right to Die” (Euthanasia) should be further looked into as an option for terminally ill patients and not considered unethical. There has been an issue concerning the topic of “Human Euthanasia” as an acceptable action in society. The research compiled in conjunction with an educated opinion will be the basis for the argument for voluntary Euthanasia in this paper. Patients suffering from an incurable illness, exhausting all medical treatments, should be given the freedom of choice to continue their path of suffering or end it at their own will. “The Right to die” is not suicide, as you are fully aware that death will be certain, as Euthanasia spares the individual of additional pain.