Brittany Maynard was diagnosed with an incurable brain tumor at the age of twenty-nine. She was given six months to live and the option of full brain radiation. If she chose to go with radiation, it could have caused her to experience the following: fatigue, nausea, memory loss, and speech loss. She began to research physician-assisted suicide and decided that it was the best choice she had left. Physician-assisted suicide is the act of a doctor ending a terminally ill patient’s life using lethal drugs. As of modern day, physician-assisted suicide is only legal in 6 states which include; Oregon, Montana, Washington, Vermont, California, and Colorado. Luckily, she lived near Oregon: one of the six states to have it legalized. She went through with it to end the suffering. More states should legalize physician-assisted suicide because it would let people who are terminally ill die with tranquility and dignity. Terminally ill patients, like Brittany Maynard, who sit in hospitals for the rest of their days often feel their liabilities hovering over them. The main issue these patients struggle with is having their family pay all the hospital bills. Patients often realize that when they die, their …show more content…
Not everyone who has chronic diseases has the opportunity Brittany Maynard had. Not only do they have to suffer, but their immediate family has to watch their quality of life slowly become nonexistent. Instead of watching them suffer, we as a government should legalize physician-assisted suicide so that people who are terminally ill can die with dignity and in peace. Imagine watching an immediate family member suffer each day they are alive and they have no choice but to wait until the day their organs fail to be at peace. It is not a pretty situation, but it is the best alternative in situations like
Brittany Maynard is a women who recommend to people to take assisted suicide because she does not want to see people suffer from pain. However, the author do not agree with her idea. She said that Maynard’s reasoning has a huge flaw. She suggested that people do not choose suicide lack dignity in order to people even take palliative medication but they still suffer pain, personality changes, and verbal, cognitive loss.
Every day in the United States 1,500 people are diagnosed with a terminal illness. These people are given few options when determining if the wish to try treatment and if treatment does not work, how to deal with the end of their lives. (author unknown, “Cancer”) With this horrible future ahead of them many may wish to make amends before it’s too late, however, an increasing number of people are seeking an alternate solution. In states such as Oregon, Washington, Vermont, Montana and soon California a relatively new, legal option is available for people with terminal illnesses. The states of Oregon, Washington, Vermont, and Montana created a law which allows people with a terminal illness and less than six months that are mentally healthy seek professional medical help that will end their lives (Humphrey, Derek) . This topic has created heated debates across the United States with each side have clear and defined reason as to why or why not this controversial law should be processed for the whole country. The people who defend the law believe that people who are losing their lives should be able to leave this world on their own terms, and with the help of physicians they can go in a painless and mess-free way. Supporters also believe that by not wanting to the end it can help save patients, doctors, and insurance time and money that could be better spent on patients who may have options and may not be able to reach them without
The decision to choose death over life should not be regulated by law, but rather be an individual’s afforded right. Therefore, physician-assisted suicide should be legalized in all 50 states. Debates on legalizing physician-assisted suicide (PAS) have increased dramatically in recent years, however there has been little action taken on state and federal levels that encourage the reform of this social policy. The main reason for this hesitance lies in the question of whether or not physician-assisted suicide should be regarded as morally acceptable. Many argue that legalizing PAS can bear lasting social effects, but surely the same can be true if our nation continues to deny an individual’s right to autonomy and self-determination.
The topic of physician-assisted suicide has become very controversial because of the ethical questions. The physical state of health of the patient, the patient’s personal life, and even the financial pressure of the patient are all factors to consider when contemplating whether or not to legalize this controversial cause of death. Physician-assisted suicide regarding medical ethics states that a physician cannot legally give any patient a lethal injection to end their life, but they can take the patient off of life support in order to increase the process of death. Physician-assisted suicide should be legalized at a federal level and should be morally acceptable for patients who are terminally ill and can no longer be treated to improve their medical situation.
In 2014, Brittany Maynard became the face for those supporting physician assisted suicide or PAS. At 29 years old and newly married, Maynard was diagnosed with terminal brain cancer and immediately underwent a partial craniotomy and partial resection. Her tumor came back much stronger, however, and in April she was given six months to live. Maynard’s only treatment option to slow but not stop the growth of the tumor was full brain radiation, but she opted against this because of the unavoidable side effects of hair loss, first degree burns, and the inevitability of death. In consideration of hospice, Maynard feared becoming resistant to morphine and losing her cognitive, motor, and verbal skills. Even more so, she did not want her family
In order to fulfill the act she had to move to another state where it was legal and ended her life by using Barbiturates that her doctor prescribed to her. After this event took place it created some thought to legalize assisted suicide. California, Colorado, Illinois, Nevada, and Rhode Island just to name some of the 12 states that have tried to legalize PAS several times have failed to do so. Many have considered how Maynard’s death can cause others to take up her actions and do the same. The choice to die, and has been only legalized in three U.S. states: Oregon, Washington, and Montana. In Oregon it was legalized in 1997 but is not referred to as physician assisted suicide but as physician aid in dying, in Washington it was legalized in 2008, and lastly in Montana in 2009. Physician assisted suicide should not become a legal option to individuals, because it is against religious beliefs, patients will be prompted to give up to soon, and it violates professional ethical
Brittany Maynard was given six months to live after being diagnosed with the deadliest form of brain cancer; she had recently just turned 29. To make matters worse, doctors had told her she would suffer from the tumor in a slow and painful manner before succumbing to death. Maynard decided she would die on November 1, a few days after her husband’s birthday under physician-assisted suicide. Unfortunately, she had to relocate from California, where her friends and family lived, to Oregon in order to fall under the “Die With Dignity” act. According to euthanasia.procon.org, only four states in the whole country have legalized assisted suicide. Unfortunately, there are many like Maynard, who have to relocate and leave their home or go through a long and strenuous court battle to receive this treatment plant. This is due to the disapproval of physician-assisted suicide.
Physician-assisted suicide, abbreviated as PAS, is a topic that carries wide concerns to people in the United States. PAS is being deliberated on whether a physician should be legally allowed to prescribe a lethal drug to its patient. Many views conflict each other on this topic, whether it is because of religion, morals, or ethics. As PAS can be a difficult subject to others, PAS is usually decided by the patient itself.
In the article “Why Doctors Must Not be Complicit in Killing Their Patients,” published in Ethics and Medicine: An International Journal of Bioethics Dr. C. Ben Mitchell, Ph.D., discusses the ethics of physician-assisted suicide. In the process of physician-assisted suicide, a doctor purposefully provides a terminally ill patient with the means to take their own life. This is often confused with active euthanasia; however, they are not the same thing. In euthanasia, the doctor administers the lethal drug to the patient, but in physician-assisted suicide, the patient must take the lethal drugs themselves. There is much debate over physician-assisted suicide today. Some people believe physician-assisted suicide should be illegal because
Currently, in Vermont, California, Oregon, Washington,and New Mexico, lethal medication is being given to terminally Ill patients to end their lives. There are several reasons why assisted suicide is illegal in the majority of states, such as the demand for suicide due to a patient 's excruciating pain, misinterpreted life expectancies and diagnoses, poor medical coverage by insurance companies, and the financial interests of the patients families. On the other hand, some suggest various reasons why assisted suicide should be legal. The legal status of physician assisted suicide, as a hotly debated topic, teeters on both sides of legality in varying
In February 6, 2015, the Supreme Court of Canada made a momentous decision that would legalize physician-assisted death within a year. Physician-assisted suicide (PAS), in simple words, means doctors prescribe a lethal dose of medication that patients take themselves. The question that whether the Criminal Code provisions should prohibit physician-assisted suicide has been discussed in public for several decades. Actually, decriminalizing PAS may cause some sorts of abuses, but not decriminalizing it would make more patients dying with excruciating pain.
Imagine living with a terminal illness that causes immense pain and suffering. It’s likely that many of us have not given it much thought. It’s much easier to believe that it won’t happen to us. The reality, however, is that people are diagnosed with these terrible illnesses every day. So, what options do patients have? For many years’, members of the medical community have discussed the practice of physician assisted suicide. This would allow terminally ill patients, many of whom have cancer, to make the difficult decision to end their lives peacefully. Doctors are able to simply write their patient a prescription, designed to end a person’s life in a non-painful way. Doctors and medical personnel have struggled with this topic, exploring the various consequences and benefits that come with making assisted suicide legal. Currently, physician assisted suicide has been made legal across a handful of states in the U.S; however, many people continue to question the ethicality of this practice. There are many different arguments to explore for and against physician assisted suicide. Some believe that physician assisted suicide will lead to involuntary euthanasia, while others say patients should have the choice to live or die. While each individual conviction may seem vastly different, they do share something in common: Their concern for the well-being of others.
The legalization of physician assisted suicide (PAS) in Oregon in 1994 changed the face of the argument between those who believe in death with dignity and those who believe in letting nature take its course. It was a major victory for PAS advocates as the first state in America had legalized PAS in the country’s history. In 2008, the neighboring state of Washington followed suit with a similar law and legalized PAS by a 58-42 margin. Vermont legalized it in 2013. PAS has also been decriminalized in the state of Montana. The assisted suicide of a 29-year-old Oregon woman with terminal brain cancer named Brittany Maynard in late 2014 brought light to the debate again.
Brittany Maynard, a woman known for her advocacy in the controversial topic of assisted suicide, officially ended her life this fall after learning of her fatal brain tumor. After complaining of horrible headaches, she decided to see a doctor where they gave her this traumatic news. She had two corrective surgeries to try and stop the growth of her large tumor, but they were unsuccessful. Her doctor then suggested full brain radiation, but after months of researching this option, along with many other, she knew her quality of what short life she had left would quickly deteriorate. With the help of her family, friends, and newly-wed husband, she made the decision to move with her loved ones from her California home to Oregon, where death with
Physician assisted suicide should be morally permissible. Patients who are in constant suffering and pain have the right to end their misery at their own discretion. This paper will explore my thesis, open the floor to counter arguments, explain my objections to the counter arguments, and finally end with my conclusion. I agree with Brock when he states that the two ethical values, self-determination and individual well-being, are the focal points for the argument of the ethical permissibility of voluntary active euthanasia (or physician assisted suicide). These two values are what drives the acceptability of physician assisted suicide because it is the patients who choose their treatment options and how they want to be medically treated. Patients are physically and emotionally aware when they are dying and in severe pain, therefore they can make the decision to end the suffering through the option of physician assisted suicide.