skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Brittany Maynard was diagnosed with terminal brain cancer in January (barley a year after she married her husband), finding out that she had about six months to live. She was told that she would have a very long and painful six months. So instead of sitting in agony waiting for death, she has decided to take her life in her own hands and commit to a physician assisted suicide. She has moved to Oregon where PAS is legal and has prepared her last day on earth. She has decided to pass soon after her husbands birthday, has picked the music, room, and the people she wants to spend it with. The heartbreaking decision is being taken about as well as it can be from her loved ones. Although it destroys them that Brittany will be gone soon, they say that she is making the best decision for her. Living life to the fullest and then ending it when she's ready is better than waiting until the cancer squeezes the life out of her. Being diagnosed at the young age of 29 makes this story even more tragic, but the promise her mother made her sheds a little bit of light. Her mother has promised to go to Machu Picchu, a place that she is terrified to go, as long as Brittany meets her there in spirit. Having the physician assisted suicide has brought peace among the family because they know that she will not suffer before she dies. Brittany says, "Having this choice at the end of my life has become incredibly important. It has given me a sense of peace during a tumultuous time that otherwise would be dominated by fear, uncertainty and pain."
Physician assisted suicide is only legal in five US states. Oregon being one of them had 71 PASs last year, almost all of the people being over the age of 70. To prevent people from abusing PAS, patients must show pain, legitimate depression, and be approved by a physician in order to apply. Some say that life is too precious to just be thrown away and that PAS is unethical. I believe that PAS is most ethical option. We euthanize our pets to "take them out of their misery" so why don't we get the same out? Life is important but so is liberty. People have the right to make their own decisions and say when enough is enough.
What do you think of PAS?
Is Brittany Maynard making the right decision?
Is it fair to her family?
8 comments:
As someone who has had a terminally ill cancer patient die in my family, I think that PAS should absolutely be legal. Under normal circumstances, suicide is never the answer, because it’s a permanent solution for a temporary problem. But, for terminal patients, the problem isn’t temporary; its life ending. Without PAS, there is a huge physical, emotional, and financial Burden that grows on the family every day spent in the hospital. Nobody wants to spend their last days weak and sick; unable to communicate with the family they love. Brittany is making the right decision, because the last memory her family will have of her is one of joy, under the circumstances that she wants. She won’t have to suffer for nearly as long as she would if PAS were illegal. It is completely Brittany’s right to go through with her decision.
Although in this case Physician assisted suicide seems like the right choice, I think that the problem with PAS is the potential for abuse. In many cases, the person who is suffering might not have the agency to make that permanent decision 100% on their own. They might be influenced by other outside influences like their financial or emotional burdens on loved ones. Furthermore, if tax-payers help pay for the PAS process, and if the decision is not 100% their own, then doesn't that make us all murderers since we contributed to the death of someone? It's a moral quandary that I can't say I support.
Though I think in certain cases assisted-suicide may be a viable option, the comparison to animals seems tenuous. There are many procedures and actions that are done to animals, but never to humans. Additionally, the pets have no way to consent or think complexly (as far as we know).
Even though I think that PAS is a legitimate option, the moral implications all seem very complicated. I think Brittany has a very legitimate reason to want to end her own life seeing as she would rather pass away having her family with her and in a comfortable environment, than in severe pain and possibly alone. I think a lot of naysayers may be thinking: "If she truly loved her husband and family she would realize the pain she is putting them through". But I think PAS would provide a sense of closure for everyone involved. However, like Murray said I can see how it could be abused by family members fed up with taking care of their loved ones. It's a cruel reality but it has to be faced.
Since this is obviously a very controversial issue, and not one i have reached a clear belief on myself, I actually like that the option is only available in a limited number of states-or rather, I like that the availability of PAS is limited because each case should be considered carefully one at a time, and this isn't a procedure that should be thrown around casually. As mentioned above, many factors come into play here and make for an all around conumdrum that's hard to form a solid stance on.
I think that PAS should be legal because it should be the patient’s choice. DNR already exists which is similar to PAS because it allows the patient to decide whether or not the physician should try to save his life. Patients should be able to die comfortably surrounded by friends and family, not suffering in a hospital bed hooked up to machines. I agree with Murray that there is a possibility for abuses, but PAS has so many strict regulations such as the patient must be experiencing extreme pain, have only 6 months to live, decide voluntarily, and have a mental evaluation. Thus, I do not think the system will really be abused and if it does become abused, then further regulations will need to be put in place.
I think, like any issue, it comes down to the lens that we look at it through. Even in the title, "suicide" has an extremely negative connotation and creates an inherent bias against PAS. If instead we called it "A system of preventing cancer from spreading throughout your body until your heart stops beating," it would probably have a lot more support than it currently does. Personally, I believe that PAS should be legal, but as Murray mentioned, only when a physician can say with 100% certainty that the patient is capable of thinking clearly and making that decision. If there is any ambiguity whatsoever, the decision definitely can not be turned over to family or friends of the patient. But in cases where patients want to make that choice to avoid suffering for the rest of their lives, why should we stop them?
There was a debate unit in my english class last year, and one of the topics was legalizing PAS. The side arguing against PAS mentioned that a large portion of people who request PAS are mentally ill or depressed. This is very important because many of these patients could find medication or other treatments that have the potential to solve their problems without ending their lives. Age was also brought up, because younger, less experienced people often make rash decisions and may want PAS. Personally I think that PAS should not be legalized unless strict requirements are imposed, such as proof of an agonizing and ultimately worse than death condition. Even then, PAS still seems kind of questionable morally. Physicians will be paid to take human lives, and it seems kind of strange, because it will give human lives price tags. Also it is possible, however unlikely, that corrupt physicians could convince patients that their condition is worse than it actually is, and attempt to manipulate them into requesting PAS for their own financial benefit. Brittany's choice to die instead of hurting herself and her family is admirable and in my opinion, all cases of PAS should be similar to this one.
Post a Comment