The nation’s eyes opened when twenty nine-year-old Brittany Maynard publicly made the decision that she was going to end her life. When she learned that even with surgery her death was inevitable, she moved with her husband and mother to the first state that made the Death with Dignity Act legal, Oregon. Brittany Maynard did not want to die in vain: “She said, “I will rob cancer of the ability to take everything of me before it takes my life”” (Printz). The right to die with dignity is ethical in many cases similar to Brittany Maynard’s and should be available in The United States because people shouldn’t have to suffer severe illnesses, there should be an option available for Physician-Assisted death, which helps with peace of mind, and they should not face a penalty for going about the process.
Times have changed; “Assisted Death” has become more common. We’ve come a long way from where assisted suicide started. Terminology changes throughout history. Many terms that used to be acceptable are no longer acceptable to be respectful to individuals in their situations. For example people with disabilities are no longer referred to as cripples, just like people without parents aren’t referred to as bastards anymore. This is a similar issue, just with physician-assisted suicide. Proper references: Death with Dignity, Physician assisted death/dying, and Aid in dying. More offensive references include: Suicide, Euthanasia, and Assisted suicide. In addition to having a new name, the process has remained similar, “The law allows terminally ill patients to end their lives through the voluntary self-administration of lethal medications, expressly prescribed by a physician for that purpose.” (Printz). Brittany Maynard became the face of the Right to Die movement as she peacefully ended her life on November 1, 2014. Even with Maynard being a strong advocate, there is still an opposing force. Either way on how people see it, times have changed, ““We used to see death as the enemy. Now we’ve come to see suffering as the enemy.”” (qtd. in Gulli 39). Death with Dignity is still looked down upon. The majority of opposition comes from disability rights and religious organizations “The religious leaders share the view that “life is sacred, and we should do nothing on an active level to either hasten or cause the death of someone,”” (qtd. In Gulli 39). For the people who are not in favor of the act of assisted death they still have the Conscience Protection Rule, “On 12/18/08, President George W. Bush announced …show more content…
Myles Lewis, Specialist Registrar in Rheumatology, states clearly that if Physician-Assisted Death is legal that it should be up to these standards for doctors: “The law must state clearly that doctors can always refuse to perform assisted death, in order to reassure doctors that they will never be forced to perform this procedure.” (Tallis 186). For example, some gynaecologists now refuse to perform terminations of pregnancy. If this same process is followed for Physician-Assisted Death, then there may not be as much controversy. A considerable part of making Physician-Assisted Death legal, is just having the option ““[Physician-Assisted Death] many people talk about it without doing it,” says Weibe. “That talk gives them some peace of mind... when they know that if it [their terminal illness] ever gets too bad, then they can face it better.”” (Gulli