Controversy Over the “Right to Die”

In 1997, Oregon became the first state in the United States to issue the Right to Die bill. This bill gave doctors of patients with terminal illness the option to prescribe a lethal dose of painkillers. Next, the state senate of California voted 23-14 to pass the controversial bill after months of debate regarding the morals of using drugs to control death. Now, California Governor Jerry Brown has the final decision on whether or not terminally ill residents of California have the option of assisted suicide.This bill has been in and out of the state senate for around a decade, but the issue was brought up again after 29 year old Brittany Maynard ended her life on Nov. 1, 2014, after being diagnosed with brain cancer. Unable to find assistance in California, Maynard moved to Oregon. Living with stage 4 malignant cancer caused her to suffer from severe head and neck pain, frequent seizures and stroke-like symptoms. She wanted to determine her means of death before it was too late for her to communicate with others. Maynard knew how much she would hurt her family, but she also knew that her life was in her own hands.All opinions stem from a number of influences, and in this case, most people’s stances are based off of religious beliefs and upbringings. Both of my parents are doctors, and personal experience with patients has largely impacted the way I see death. I strongly stand by my belief that a person has the right to die, or at least the option to do so.Every person owns his or her body, and I believe that it is the right of a terminally-ill person to choose to “die with dignity.” This phrase is often used by people who have argued for their own right to die. Although physicians have been persecuted for committing euthanasia, or “mercy killing,” the new bill will allow patients to have a legal option that they can determine for themselves. Patients must be diagnosed with a terminal illness and confirmed that they have less than six months left to live.From personal experience, I have come to understand that most people with terminal illnesses die before their body is declared dead. It’s difficult to see a loved one unable to speak, eat and smile, knowing that each day is worse than the last. Surgeries and tests are only prolonging the final blow—death. The silence of the heart monitor is deafening, but I cannot explain the weight in your heart when you stand day after day in the hospital room and watchthe light in someone’s eyes fade away. You somehow know that if they had the capacity to open their mouth, they’d probably request to live their last day conscious and aware of all of the love that surrounds them. Most families spend money to keep loved ones alive for as long as possible, but this is more for the family than for the individual person.I will never know what the correct way to die is until I face death myself, but from all of the people I’ve met in hospitals, to live through an IV is not ideal before death. My parent’s profession greatly influences my beliefs, but they understand the pain in a patient’s eyes when they are too ill to communicate. Doctors should not have the choice to end a patient’s life, but they should be allowed to assist a patient who chooses to die before his or her illness drags out death over an agonizing six month period. Patients who want to end their battle with illness but have no legal options would either have to starve themselves to death or suffer weeks, often months, until they meet the release of death.Stories like Maynard’s have opened the eyes of many Californians. Many label her as selfish and foolish, but she knew the consequences the moment she moved to Oregon. She was not weak for giving up. She deserved a right to choose her own fate, and as much as her loved ones miss her, they know she is much happier now than when she was slowly losing control over her own body.Although it is arguable that death by a lethal dose of drugs is immoral and unethical, it can also be argued that keeping someone alive with manufactured drugs and machines is also unethical. All medicine is unnatural, but it is not up to one group of people to determine the fate of others’ lives because of personal religious beliefs. Living in a country that possesses the technology capable of giving people a choice in means of death is a privilege that others would prefer to starvation.“Dying with Dignity.” Is it dignified to choose to end your own life? The issue is subjective. Each situation is unique. There is no 100 percent correct answer, but keeping options open for others is a chance to learn as a community, or a state, or a country. Everyone is entitled to their own life and what to do with it, but terminally ill humans will not always have the ability to voice their opinion.