Brittany Maynard -- Right to Die

[Zach Caldwell]

Brittany Maynard is 29 years old and has terminal brain cancer. She wants and has fought for the right to decide when she wants to die on her own terms. You can only imagine the arguments for and against.

 

Do we have a right to decide when we die? If so, then should it be limited or left totally up to the person? Does the person dying from a terminal condition deserve the choice, where as the person who is not dying, but wants to end his or her life, not be allowed to do so? A very complex issue. What are your thoughts?

 

http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/national_world/2014/10/31/1031-Brittany-Maynard-is-new-face-of-right-to-die.html

[Zach Caldwell]

This just in. Death With Dignity Advocate Brittany Maynard Dies in Oregon

http://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/death-dignity-advocate-brittany-maynard-dies-oregon-n235091

[A.B]

Yes, it is a very complex issue but I believe that if a person is sane of mind, can prove that it is his/her decision (not being coerced by someone who may possibly want to inherit sooner rather than later), and with possibly a few more safeguards in place it should be up to him/her to decide so. It is a sensitive, complex issue but I believe in certain situations like fatal illnesses or very old age when one is beginning to realise  that he/she is losing control of one's faculty, mind, personality etc they should be allowed maybe after a psy. evaluation, court appearance? panel of experts? be allowed to die with dignity instead of a drooling mess after a prolonged, painful struggle that after all has not saved/cured them but just prolonged not their life but their suffering.

I realise that for some this subject maybe even more sensitive/complex with religious and/or existential beliefs but this is just my opinion and I'll never critise/condemn anyone for their own belief/opinion in this or any other subject.

[Emperor Roland]

Yeah, this is a tough one, but... in my opinion, is very simple.  Every person should have the right to end their life when they get to a point that living their life is more painful then letting it go.  i agree that there needs to be safe guards in place, but the ultimate decision should be ours.

 

I know the religious people out there would still call that murder, and murder is a sin.  however, as it is also said, God made us with the ability to make out of decisions, He gave us free will.  we should be allowed to exercise that.  after all, it will be us facing the consequences of our decisions, not them. 

[ken barber]

Roland,

Surprisingly I agree with you for the most part. I could care less what the religious folks say of course. Someone's belief in fairy tales should have no impact on someone going through this kind of ordeal

[Jeikor]

I have thought on this question quite a bit and I am a Christian. My first time considering this was in high school for a Contemporary Issues class (in the 1970's). I think that in a case where there is no hope for a cure and death is certain that a person should be able to decide when they want the suffering to end. Of course I agree that precautions and safeguards should be in place for the reasons stated by A.B. This is to me totally different than a person who wants to take their life just to escape an unpleasant situation.

[Kyle Aarons]

It really saddens me that we have more compassion for terminally iI'll and suffering pets than humans. Why in cure medical expenses to keep someone who does not want to live alive? Can't that money be better used on some on who is willing to fight to stay alive and wants to be alive? Hell, the money spent on one terminally I'll person could probably provide top notch medical care for dozens of children with mild aliments. I am notsaying to kill those who what to fight but for those who don't want to suffer it is insane to force them to stick it out

[A.B]

wait...no...how...what...? Well that happened...well I guess there's a first time for everything...but I seem to agree with Kyle...

There's two possibilities as to why this is happening, at least in my mind,

 

1. legal bs/ life insurances not paying if someone has committed suicide.

 

2. religion/morals/ethics etc

 

both of which will tell you that since you're human and you have a "soul" you must live on until you die and no one has the right to take your life for you or let you take yours, that it is a mortal sin etc etc and that doctors have no right playing god and killing patients.

 

I tend to disagree with everything of the above except one thing.

 

If a society is to allow assisted suicide it has better work out that there are no legal windows that a sibling can kill off another one just to inherit sooner or something similar. Psy. evaluations have to be mandatory as well as other safeguards to ensure that the person who is asking to terminate his/her life is fully conscious and able of mind to take that decision and that he/she is not coerced to do so by anyone. And that furthermore that he/she has truly a terminal illness and is not asking this because of depression or something else that can be treated.

[seabird]

Yes, this IS an incredibly complex situation, complex on so many fronts that it is impossible to pick just one and say it is paramount. Let me put just ONE possible situation out for comment;

 

Supposing your parent of even your spouse has decided that his or her life is no longer possible, due to pain, illness or tragedy. He or she has decided upon death as the only possible alternative to unendurable agony. Once the decision has been made and the method of ending "it all" has been taken, suddenly a cure has been discovered! An irreversible path has been entered into and you, as the survivor cannot stop or reverse what has been entered into.

 

 

There are then two victims in this tragedy, perhaps more, but definitely the person who has begun the path of suicide and also yourself and all family members, friends and succeeding generations as yet unborn. The decision to end one's life almost never involves only the person who wishes to end it all. For that reason, I could not condone or encourage such an action, even though I would understand it. We do not live our lives only for ourselves, nor are we completely devoid of those who are part of our lives. 

 

 

I picture a sobbing child sitting alone, crying over his or her cherished Grandmother, Favorite Uncle or Parent who took his or her own life and left that child alone in this world to mourn his or her loss. I do not think I could be so selfish and uncaring towards those I would leave behind, regardless of how much I was suffering.

 

 

Charles Bird

SeaBird

[Emperor Roland]

But the question becomes.  will that child's pain be any less if the person committed suicide, rather than just wait for the inevitable end of the illness?  there are very few things that 'suddenly' have a cure.  medical science does not happen that way. 

 

of course this is a very sensitive issue, with no easy answer, but the one thing that seems to be forgotten by many is, what would you do in that situation?  it's always easy to say what we think we would do, but until we are there, we really can't know.

[ken barber]

Both Charles and Roland make very good arguments here. I think it needs to be a personal issue not a public, religious, or government issue. This is something that people (ill and loved ones) have to deal with in the way that is best for them as a family.  

[Zach Caldwell]

Brittany, if you are not aware of the full story. Lived in a state that would not allow her to take her own life under any circumstances. It so happened that Oregon has a die with dignity law. The law lays out what is permissible and under what circumstances, it involves the attending physician, other doctors and psychologists. So it is not like this is a case of wham bam thank you ma'am.

 

So, in this case and in this situation, steps were taken to verify that she indeed had a terminal brain disease, she was well informed of her condition and knew what to expect, as did her husband and family. She was found to be very sound of mind and thoughtful and critical in deciding the course of her life. In the case of Brittany, she had the full support of her family, husband, and parents.

 

So it would seem to me, this is the best method for all states to follow. Have a system in place, like Oregon, so that someone cannot abuse the system to say murder a family member or to act against the wishes of said family member. It is very much a person decision and no one, or state should force that person to live in cruel circumstances, such as what Brittany was facing. But, the state should have a system in place to make sure the patient is sound enough to make the decision and the condition is indeed terminal.

 

Death is never an easy thing for anyone to face. I would hope that, if faced with a disease that is so terminal and debilitating that the essence of the person will be lost, long before they die, that the family would take comfort in losing their love one in sleep rather than face and deal with losing a piece of their love one a day at a time.

 

For those who have a religious objection to one taking their life, faced with a terminal condition, that is their choice and their right. But they do not and should not be allowed to stand in the way of anyone else making that choice for themselves.

[ken barber]

Very well said Zach

[tkyrchncs]

My question is:  can we actually prevent anyone from committing suicide who is determined to do so?  Should we as a society have any right, or do we have any obligation, to even try to prevent the death of anyone who wants to die?

[Rilbur]

Should we as a society have any right, or do we have any obligation, to even try to prevent the death of anyone who wants to die?

When that decision is prompted by an illness of the mind (depression, for example), definitely.

 

When that decision is prompted by an illness of the body...  therein lies the moral quandary.

[tkyrchncs]

Who is to judge?  Is an illness of the mind, in fact, any different from an illness of the body?  If the person is miserable and no longer wishes to live, does it matter if the misery arises within the mind or the body, if in fact there is any real difference between them?  At what cost to the person and the society do we keep a "mentally" ill person from committing suicide?  Send someone each day, perhaps more than once a day, to administer meds, by force if necessary?  Lock them permanently in a padded room, naked?  Wouldn't these tactics also work on the "physically" ill?  Why wouldn't we do this with them as well?  Just because we are pretty sure most of them won't live as long as most "mentally" ill persons could?  

Isn't the whole argument of those in favor of "permitted" or "assisted" suicide that each person should be able to decide when there is insufficient quality of life to continue?

[Rilbur]

Is an illness of the mind, in fact, any different from an illness of the body?

Yes, of course.

 

First, most mental illnesses can in fact be treated.  Second, a mental illness usually interferes with a person's ability to think and function, hence why 'competency' hearings are so important.

[JimD]

I think I have a unique view of the 2 questions I nursed my mother who had a Brain Tumour, my father who had Dementia and my Husband has just died of a Massive Stroke. In each case, when they were fine and had full capacity they each discussed with me their end of life whished, my father and Husband  wanted quality of life not quantity while my mother wanted extra time, she spent the last 35 days of her life in a semi coma unable to do anything including feed her self.  When each could have had life extending procedures and treatments carried out I followed their wished. I wasn't my decision to make but as Next of Kin to each, I had a moral obligation to follow their wishes whether I agreed or not. Its all about what the individual wanted before they lost control in all 3 cases they had an illness which meant they each lost capacity I had to be their voice.  Unless you have been in this position you cannot really discuss it with any understanding as to the pros and cons of allowing someone to die.      

[Mary]

Like JimD, three times, my family has faced these issues.  

My mother had cancer that ripped through her system faster than expected, finally ending in her brain.  The pain was intense and there was no medical relief possible.  She finally died from heart failure due to the pain.

 

My father, due to medical malpractice, had a 100 % kidney failure, that resulted in his organs rapidly failing.  The facility responsible wanted to keep him on life support.  My father had an abhorrence of being trapped inside his body as a vegetable.  We as a family made the decision to pull the plug.

 

My brother, had lung cancer that when found, had also moved into his brain.  He actually was not in pain, but was not able to communicate clearly, due to the pressure on his brain.  Again, trapped inside his body.  As he said to my son, "This sucks."  He died during the night in early December 2014. 

My sister, son and I have all spoken about what we want to do.  But, as I have learned when I had surgery, if you do not have your wishes written down, in a living will, a hospital can and will ignore your family, who may try to carry out your request for care.  It also relieves your family of the feeling of 'guilt' that may be placed on them for the decision of 'pulling the plug'.  Although my sister, who was at the hospital talked with me on the phone, she had to tell the doctor and always felt something for that.  I recommend everyone have this discussion and get the legal documents prepared. 

[seabird]

We have all agreed that this is a moral issue to be resolved ONLY by the individual involved, but I see at least two problems with that stand. 1. The moment such an act becomes recognized by a governing agency, morality flies out the window and it becomes a government issue. 2. If government remains silent on the issue and keeps its hands off, then what is to prevent a moral suicide from becoming a permit to commit murder?

 

The human spirit is a perverse critter, subject to the whims and desires of all our fellow humans. Some of the strongest emotions we have is anger, fear and greed. Any of those and, perhaps a few more that I have not mentioned, would end up the driving force in "suicides that are actually murder".

 

So, while I would support someone else's decision to "end it all" my own conscience would always wonder if I had, in some horrible miscarriage of justice and morality, helped murder an innocent victim. I am not sure I could live with a thought like that on my conscience.

 

Charles Bird

SeaBird

[Mark C.]

I agree with Mary about each of us need to have legal documents prepared. Especially for people in states where gay marriage is not recognized. And our straight unmarried brothers and sisters need protection too. In Arizona there is a large population of unmarried older straight people who can not afford to get married or else lose benefits if they do. Irregardless of where you stand on the subject, your wishes need to documented legally for medical personel. Never should a family be put through hell if you do not let your wishes be known. Please everyone, if you do not have a medical will or directive, please do it.