The choice to die

On Nov. 4, PSU students who vote in Washington will be making a choice: whether or not Measure 1000, allowing assisted suicide, should pass.

Measure 1000 would permit terminally ill, mentally competent, adult Washington residents who are medically predicted to have six months or less to live, to voluntarily request and self-administer lethal medication prescribed by a physician.

There are many conditions of being allowed this form of euthanasia: The patient must not be only competent and ill, but must have proof of this, verified by two physicians. The patient must not have been coerced, and they must have been informed of all other options, such as hospice placement.

There is a 15-day waiting period between the oral request and a written request, and a 48-hour waiting period between the written request and the writing of the prescription. Two independent witnesses–who may not be family members or health care providers, must sign the written request. Of course, the patient may change their mind at any time.

Oregon has had the “Death with Dignity” law in effect for 11 years. Since its passing, 341 patients have died with their own consent under this law. The majority (between 69 and 98 percent) were above the age of 55, had terminal cancer, had health insurance and were well educated.

The greatest argument regarding the patients’ perspective comes from wanting autonomy over their own bodies in a time of terminal illness. They want protection of their rights, and the freedom to end their own pain. They do not feel it is the right of anyone else to decide when and how their lives will end, and whether they should have to suffer through the final stages of terminal illness.

Supporting individual rights is important. Free will is something that should always be defended, so long as it is not infringing on the rights or harming of others. In the case of death with dignity, both of these conditions are met.

Opponents argue that the emotional pain and suffering of the family and friends who lose their loved ones beg to differ, but supporters counter that the terminally ill will die anyway–and with assisted suicide, the only difference is that they are forgoing the intense anguish they would have to face should they decide to live out their last days.

Many religious groups have also spoken out against death with dignity. The consensus is that only God should decide when a person’s life ends. This comes from a good place. It is not so much that the faithful want to take away rights, as they want what is best for the dying.

However, in America we cannot make laws based on the spiritual values of one or a few groups. We must make laws based on what is good for the majority, and what best protects our rights as American citizens. Assisted suicide is a choice. It is not forced on an individual. Those who subscribe to the religious stance that suicide is a sin do not have to choose that option. That right is protected, as should the rights of those who disagree.

From a basic standpoint, death with dignity has little difference from a do not resuscitate order. When people choose to write a living will, it is stated that in vegetative states or other medical tragedies, the option of “do” or “do not” be resuscitated, or kept alive by machines, is there.

We may make the choice to not be resuscitated for many reasons, mostly based on the idea that life trapped in the shell of a body, unable to communicate with our loved ones or move about freely, is not life.

When a loved one is in a car accident and left comatose, we can choose to “pull the plug” and end that person’s suffering.

This goes against the religious argument that only God should decide when the person dies. However, we do it out of mercy. Those who support assisted suicide feel the same way–they want to end their lives out of a desire to end the pain, not out of a desire not to live.

That is the difference between suicide and assisted suicide. Suicide is committed by emotionally unstable people who may have years of life ahead of them. These people can possibly be helped through psychiatric care and loving support.

Assisted suicide is merely a means of expediting inevitable death. The people that assisted suicide would help have been determined terminally ill. They are going to die. In spiritual terms, God has decided their life is to end. The terminally ill only ask for the mercy to die without prolonged suffering.

Of course, Measure 1000 does raise many questions. Opponents are concerned that people who stand to benefit from the wills of these patients may coerce the patients to request euthanasia. They may “witness” the signing of the request.

This needs to be addressed so that the greed of these unscrupulous characters is not affecting the ailing person’s choices. Others are alarmed that this might discriminate against those who do not have good health care, and might choose assisted suicide as a more affordable option.

It is essential that these patients are not coerced in any way to choose this option to “save money.” The rights of these patients must be protected no matter what road they choose to take.

Both sides to this measure are truly concerned about what is best for the terminally ill’s welfare. They are both to be commended for working hard for the mercy and moral fiber of those who have been struck with these health tragedies.

In the end, it should be the patient’s decision, for most of us cannot imagine what living with a disease such as cancer is like, or how terrible it is to make a decision about whether you’d rather die now, or later. I do not envy those who must live knowing that no matter what, they will die soon. And that is why I relinquish the choice to them.