Summary Of Expanding The Right To Die By André Da Loba

The general argument made by the author, André da Loba, in his work Expanding the Right to Die, is that ill people should be able to decide to end their own lives and pass up a long and drawn out death. He writes “A 29-year-old woman with terminal brain cancer has announced a campaign to support physician-assisted suicide leading up to her own death next month.” In this passage, the author is suggesting that people should have the right to choose their time of death during life ending conditions. In conclusion, the author’s belief is that people suffering should be allowed to have a physician-assisted suicide. In my view, the author is right because people don’t deserve to suffer. More specifically, I believe that people that have already suffered
through treatments should not agonize through death. For example, the woman with terminal brain cancer is going to have a physician-assisted suicide to end her horrific misery. Although the author might object that there could be more time for her, I maintain that she may not physically, nor emotionally, be able to keep going. Therefore, I conclude that suffering people should have the right to choose their own death. In my supporting opinion, I feel that it should be a right for patients to choose to end their own suffering as well as their supportive families.
The Death with Dignity Act has been in use for many years now, and according to Thaddeus Pope, there have been numerous people that have made use of the law. “Since the Oregon Death with Dignity Act was enacted in 1997, more than 1,100 people have obtained life-ending prescriptions, and about 750 used them. Most were dying of cancer.” (Pope). Based on Pope’s statistics there are many people that have the ability to use the prescription, but chose not to. There are many fears that go into suffering through a disease, and a majority of the people that utilized the prescriptions were fearing the loss of dignity during their time of pain and suffering. This act allows the anguish, for the patient and their family, to cease. There is an immense amount of pain that a family goes through watching loved ones anguish in their last days, as shown by Anita Freeman. “I watched my 66-year-old sister die in pain from stage 4 liver cancer. It took five weeks and it was excruciating for the both of us.” (Freeman). This shows that there is a very large benefit to the family if the patient were able to choose the right to a dignified death. During the time of her suffering, her pain medication was no longer working, causing her to wish for a merciful death. As a family member, wishing for your loved one to finally pass on can be hard, but keeping
that person “here” agonizing can be even harder; if not unethical. “When doctors equate healing with quantity of life, they ignore the quality of life. If suffering is intolerable, it is inhumane not to end it.” (Grohol). John Grohol strengthens the point of how distress to the end is wrong. When medication can no longer remove the pain, and procedures can no longer keep them going; why should they be tortured until the last minute of their lives? People should not be forced to suffer at the end, but to be peacefully put to rest. The opposing view point on this debate feels that a rightful death violates medical principles, has far too many questionable aspects, and is too aggressive of a treatment.
Doctors are only giving patients two choices: die now or die later. “I see it all the time: sick, elderly patients being treated by a slew of specialists who aggressively order tests and procedures that result in physical (not to mention psychological and financial) harm.” (Jauhar). They are being treated without being informed of other beneficial options that could help them live more comfortably. Thus, these patients choose death over living with a non-curable disease. The “Death with Dignity Act” is very questionable: are the people using it being informed of all options by qualified doctors? Ilora Finlay feels that there is a false hope to this law. “We have seen the steady rise in Oregon’s death rate from physician-assisted suicide, currently between four and five times the number when the law was enacted.” (Finlay). This shows that there is no way to confirm that there are safety measures in place for the misuse of the prescriptions, for those that request “assisted suicide out of a sense of duty or obligation.” (Finlay). In continuation of the fears coming out of Oregon, there have been events that have failed in Holland; not to mention the violation of medical principles. “Holland shows how such measures get out of control. While the state of dying in America is outrageous, two wrongs
don’t make a right.” (Byock). Holland had numerous problems with euthanasia being used for mental illnesses, including its first practicing psychiatrist who felt that the situation had gone quote: “off the rails.” In the end who is to say that the same problem can’t happen the same way in Oregon, or other states? According to the opposition of my topic there are a number of medical principles that are violated by the use of the peaceful death act. On the other hand, the medical principles are always changing based on new procedures and because of the changing beliefs of medical personnel. Byock, himself says that the support for assisted suicide is rising. Opponents of this feel there are far too many questions; whether or not people are releasing themselves out of personal duty. Respectfully, Oregon has been successfully utilizing this law without any problems by requiring two oral and one written request over a specific time period. Those that oppose argue the use of assisted suicide fixes nothing in society, and medical practice. I disagree with this statement based on the fact that the afflicted are no longer suffering, and patients are not taking their own lives just to get out of the pain. When people (and their loved ones) are no longer in agony there is a better society. If a person is suffering through a disease, should they really be forced to endure more through the last few days before the disease finally kills them? Personally if I was in that position, I would prefer to just have a physician-assisted suicide, a peaceful and painless experience. Probably the most peaceful time during the entire disease and slew of treatments. This is why the assisted suicide law should be continued throughout the country. To keep the people and their families from being put through more pain at the end; to make the patients last few hours on earth peaceful, painless, and worry free.