Monday, February 29, 2016

If Death Were At Your Doorstep...

People say that hindsight is 20-20. Looking back at the misery of the ill and dying, we may find ourselves wishing, feeling that we could have done something more for them --and ourselves-- to spare any suffering that the disease or injury may cause. This leads into one of our modern controversies.

Do the terminally ill have a right to die?

I define terminally ill as a diagnosis of six months or less to live, which is exactly the fate that Brittany Maynard received in 2014 shortly after a diagnosis of Glioblastoma. She heard so many negative outlooks about this type of brain tumor that she had no chance (short of a miracle) of surviving. Maynard did not believe that she could handle the rumored pain and said to People Magazine:

“My Glioblastoma is going to kill me and that’s out of my control. I've discussed with many experts how I would die from it and it’s a terrible, terrible way to die. So being able to choose to go with dignity is less terrifying.”

Because of her fate and fears, Maynard believed she needed assisted suicide in the form of active euthanasia. However, due the previously mentioned, controversy, her home did not have such laws, forcing her to move so she may legally die without her family losing benefits.

Maynard's case raised many questions that, even two years later, go virtually unanswered. Certain places --like Oregon-- have a "Death with Dignity" act, where a terminally ill individual may choose to receive a lethal dose of drugs to end their life. (Not legally considered suicide under act) This prevents unnecessary pain brought on by the late stages of incurable diseases such as tumors and cancer. In fact, not legalizing this form of active euthanasia forces the people who must already deal with the news of their impending death to undergo months of cruel and grueling pain. At this stage of illness, they have lost immediate hope and have nothing to look forward to beyond that and death. In the United States, the eighth amendment prevents federal imposition of excess bail, excess fines and cruel and unusual punishment. This constitutional right could be manipulated to argue that there is no legal ground for the federal government to force this nature of suffering upon its citizens. This part of the constitution could also be interpreted to deem that withholding insurance benefits from families like Maynard's during their time of grieving as cruel and unusual punishment of innocents.

My next point, however, is where the former constitutional evidence can be inapplicable. The Constitution also contains the tenth amendment, which decides that, whichever issues are not specifically stated in our constitutional rights cannot be enforced by the federal branch. Therefore, this duty falls to the state legislature. If the aforementioned manipulation of the eighth amendment is proven invalid or ruled irrelevant, the states will maintain complete final decision over the right to die within their borders. (Until the unlikely incident of the ratification of an additional and more specific amendment, that is) While I do not believe that the federal government has a right to prevent assisted suicide under the eighth amendment, a proper solution would certainly be that unlikely ratification. This would be argued as a violation of states' rights, of course, but it would also disable certain policies that make this issue the controversy it is in the first place.

Like abortion, the right to die for the terminally ill is currently a matter that's final decision is dependent upon state law, practically heating and brewing the controversy nationwide. Leaving this to state legislature is the legal boundary dying people like Maynard face. In her time attempting to gain her right to assisted suicide, she experienced harsh and unnecessary pain due to her Glioblastoma. She later argued:

“I’m not killing myself. Cancer is killing me.”

This is the hard truth of the matter. Whether we like it or not, 589,430 men and women were estimated to die of terminal cancers in cancer.org's 2015 statistics report. Nearly twelve people per minute die around the world due to cancer alone. They know that they cannot face treatment, and they have accepted their inevitable death. So why do so many of us argue that prolonging death after delivering the sentence is moral? We subject human beings to torturous, unbearable pain that will not only eventually kill them but also break their spirit in the slow process. Physical and mental agony combined may force someone to die lacking the personality that built his or her humanity. Many compare a dying cancer patient to a shell of a person that died upon diagnosis of death.

We cannot ease the impact of this disease if we become a part of the agony of terminal illness itself.

We must face it and refrain from inflicting further disease upon the already afflicted. Let the dead die while their soul lives. Assisted suicide and terminal illness lead to the same destination. But will we be human for the sake of humanity when considering the route?

When making this decision for oneself, use the benefit of hindsight, but also consider the broader factors of the terminally ill population. One may save a great deal of that 20-20 regret if they choose to attempt foresight in the face of what could, one day, be their own decision regarding death.

Brittany Maynard (November 19th, 1984 - November 1st, 2014)

Citations:

1 comment:

  1. Makes me wonder what I would do -- but, God willing, I hope I never have to make such a decision.

    Thorough and convincing argument. I love your writing style, Mary.
    9

    ReplyDelete