Death with Dignity
Death with Dignity will allow terminally ill patients to decide when and how they want to die.
I, the undersigned, support a Death with Dignity Act in our state. Death with Dignity allows for Physician-Aid-In-Dying (PAD), which refers to a competent adult with a terminal illness, who decides to hasten death with a lethal dose of medication, which is prescribed by their physician.
Imagine you have been diagnosed with ALS (amyotrophic lateral sclerosis), which affects the nervous system. You will begin to lose all motor ability, usually beginning in the feet and working the way up the body. The mind is seldom affected by ALS, so you will know and feel everything that your body is losing the ability to do. There will be physical pain. However, there will be emotional pain and fear as well. You will have difficulty breathing, swallowing, walking, and talking. Your family will have to care for you, because you will lose the ability to walk, bathe, use the bathroom independently, etc. You will most likely end up bed-bound. Now, imagine that you have the ability to choose when to end your suffering.
Not only will a Death with Dignity Act open up discussion between patient and physician about PAD but also about advance care planning in general. Advance care planning is needed for all people, but especially for the terminally ill patient. If end of life wishes can be discussed early in the illness, then the patient has a better opportunity to meet end of life goals. It becomes an issue of honesty and transparency.
While there are some strong arguments against PAD, the arguments for PAD appear much stronger. First and foremost, all people have the basic human right of autonomy ? to make their own decisions. A competent person should have the right to choose when and how they die.
Second is the issue of justice. If a patient has the right to refuse treatment that will prolong their life, then that patient should have the same right to decide when to die. After all, refusing the life-prolonging treatment will, in fact, hasten death.
Hastening death leads to the third argument for PAD. Compassion. Suffering can mean much more than just physical pain. It can mean spiritual and emotional pain, loss of the sense of self, and losing dignity, when someone else has to care for their personal needs, such as bathing and diapering. To provide for PAD before a patient loses independence is providing compassionate care.
Lastly, prohibiting PAD limits personal liberty. If a terminally ill patient wants to end their life then allowing PAD respects their liberty and rights to choose.
Two other states have Death with Dignity laws, and Oregon has a proven 14-year record that the law is not being abused. It is up to qualified patients and their physician to make the decision on an individual basis.
Please take the time to review the Oregon and Washington Death with Dignity Acts and considering sponsoring a referendum or bill for our state, which I strongly support.
Imagine you have been diagnosed with ALS (amyotrophic lateral sclerosis), which affects the nervous system. You will begin to lose all motor ability, usually beginning in the feet and working the way up the body. The mind is seldom affected by ALS, so you will know and feel everything that your body is losing the ability to do. There will be physical pain. However, there will be emotional pain and fear as well. You will have difficulty breathing, swallowing, walking, and talking. Your family will have to care for you, because you will lose the ability to walk, bathe, use the bathroom independently, etc. You will most likely end up bed-bound. Now, imagine that you have the ability to choose when to end your suffering.
Not only will a Death with Dignity Act open up discussion between patient and physician about PAD but also about advance care planning in general. Advance care planning is needed for all people, but especially for the terminally ill patient. If end of life wishes can be discussed early in the illness, then the patient has a better opportunity to meet end of life goals. It becomes an issue of honesty and transparency.
While there are some strong arguments against PAD, the arguments for PAD appear much stronger. First and foremost, all people have the basic human right of autonomy ? to make their own decisions. A competent person should have the right to choose when and how they die.
Second is the issue of justice. If a patient has the right to refuse treatment that will prolong their life, then that patient should have the same right to decide when to die. After all, refusing the life-prolonging treatment will, in fact, hasten death.
Hastening death leads to the third argument for PAD. Compassion. Suffering can mean much more than just physical pain. It can mean spiritual and emotional pain, loss of the sense of self, and losing dignity, when someone else has to care for their personal needs, such as bathing and diapering. To provide for PAD before a patient loses independence is providing compassionate care.
Lastly, prohibiting PAD limits personal liberty. If a terminally ill patient wants to end their life then allowing PAD respects their liberty and rights to choose.
Two other states have Death with Dignity laws, and Oregon has a proven 14-year record that the law is not being abused. It is up to qualified patients and their physician to make the decision on an individual basis.
Please take the time to review the Oregon and Washington Death with Dignity Acts and considering sponsoring a referendum or bill for our state, which I strongly support.
View Comments