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:

• "Should Terminally Ill Patients Have a Right to Die?" US News. N.p., n.d. Web. <http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2014/11/04/should-brittany-maynard-have-had-the-right-to-doctor-assisted-suicide>.
• "The Future of the Right-to-Die Movement." US News. N.p., n.d. Web. <http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2014/11/03/the-future-of-the-assisted-suicide-movement-after-brittany-maynard>.
• "The Annenberg Guide to the United States Constitution." Annenberg Classroom. N.p., n.d. Web. 29 Feb. 2016. <http://www.annenbergclassroom.org/page/a-guide-to-the-united-states-constitution>.
• "Figures." (n.d.): n. pag. Cancer.org. 2015. Web. <http://www.cancer.org/acs/groups/content/@editorial/documents/document/acspc-044552.pdf>.
• "World Cancer Death Clock." World Cancer Death Clock. N.p., n.d. Web. 29 Feb. 2016. <http://www.medindia.net/patients/calculators/world_cancer_clock.asp>.

Life Without Convenience

 Author Heidi Grant Halvorson reports in The Huffington Post that humans are prone to make genuine arguments and promises in hypothetical and purely logical situations. However, she also reports that certain people tend to fail to follow through when faced with the opportunity to act on their word. Therefore, while I hope to make a logical and balanced argument today, I concede that I am not a sound judge of my future human behavior and decision making should I face losing my modern conveniences in reality as opposed to hypothesis.

That said, if I had to provide an umbrella of my own logic, I would sacrifice the six conveniences provided in this order:

1. Automobile
2. Washing Machine
3. Refrigerator
4. Radio & Television
5. Telephone
6. Bathroom

My first choice, the automobile, was the simplest. I am not a driver. In addition, I do not travel such great distances on land in my daily life that requires this mode of transportation. While I believe in carpooling, I do not need this particular practice to reach my destinations. I have a healthy set of legs, feet and toes with sufficient tennis shoes for element protection, so I may walk. There is also a multitude of public transportation selections available to the common man in the developed world. On top of that, these selections appear ever changing with the release of Uber and the addition of bullet trains. Cars do seem like the faster operation, but I do not feel my lifestyle necessitates this particular convenience for the time being.

Second, I choose life without a washing machine. I cannot deny that this household appliance, including its dryer counterpart, save me much time and worry. I am the type that will realize that I have not done sufficient laundry and do small loads to get through a week. I would lose an appliance I am greatly dependent on. That doesn't mean I'd suffer in any significant way. In fact, this made second on the list because I believe this loss could eventually become a benefit. I already acknowledge that I have too many clothes. Losing a washing machine would certainly mean I'd at first become overwhelmed by dirty laundry, potentially prompting me to consolidate my wardrobe. Once I'd performed that task, I could then become more responsible in managing my clothes maintenance than I am now, whether I hand washed the garments or walked to the nearby Laundromat. Though challenging, the benefits for me outweigh those initial speed bumps.

Third, my refrigerator would have to go. The storage space is a total mess anyway and contains foods I do not need or do not eat. Losing what I store there would not hinder me either. After thinking it through, I realize that fresh fruits and vegetables do have shelf life out of the refrigerator. Regarding meat, I am a vegetarian, so that item is not a concern. Most of what I buy tends to come in boxes and cans as well, so I would still be able to eat those things with ease. When considering a solution to milk and eggs, I found quick solutions as well. Farm-fresh eggs from a henhouse, I learned from my cousin who raises chickens, do not need refrigeration to keep. To have milk, I would have to adjust to powdered milk and find a product that would properly supplement the nutrients of liquid dairy. Flavor and temperature are minor factors in this convenience, of course, so they should be abandoned without much reservation.

Radio and television came as my fourth decision due to my lack of appreciation for modern music and my opinion that my TV hinders my actions more than it does help them. My parents raised me on their type of music. Since I grew up surrounded by music old enough to find on vinyl, the modern music stream never particularly caught me. Television, on the other hand, is something that catches me too much. Sometimes I get home from school so tired that I'll merely click on the TV because that's what's least energy stealing in the moment. Then, I am caught up in it and forget self control until my energy drained, due to lazing around the house too long. If I had no TV, I feel I'd have more energy and motivation driven towards what stimulates the mind without sapping personal resolve.

Next, I'd give up my telephone, which is my cell phone. The immediate arguments that enter my head start with that I need it for communication. Frankly, when considered, I lived with a similar schedule to what I have now with more requirements and unpredictability until I got a cell phone just two years ago, when I turned fifteen. I have email, and my family has always had a house phone just in case. I can communicate without a pocket-sized mobile device if needed. After this, I think about how often I pull it out at school to do assignments, take pictures or do research. This brought about the realization that, with the combination of the Mac laptops and my IPad, I have no use for an additional outlet for work. In fact, my phone alone nearly renders the other devices unnecessary, meaning they likely render this particular convenience the same.

Finally, I would give up the bathroom. Hygiene in my life is not only a comfort to myself but one of the first things people use to judge a person's character. If I go into a job interview, I'd rather be the person who doesn't have a cell phone number or an opinion on the most recent episode of the most popular show than the one who doesn't receive a career because they're odorous. I do realize that I have a backyard with plenty of grass and a hose. Although the lack of privacy combined with the buildup of filth and stink that a bathroom carries down the drain is livable, it is not healthy or representative of the person I'd like to be. Squatting and stinking should be left for camping trips, not everyday life.

As my last choice represents, I am prone to human decisions and influence despite my word, as Halvorson argued. Still, though I am probably more addicted to convenience than I realize, orienting my health as a human first should help increase my follow through if I should have to give one or all of the six up one day.

Services Acting in Disservice

Seat belts save lives. Or, as some parents might prefer, "Buckle up and shut up!"
We've all been told throughout our lives that the first thing we must do as passengers in a vehicle is be sure to buckle in. We buckle our belts in cars, trucks and jeeps. Some golf carts even feature seat belts. There's one vehicle, however, that escapes the seat belt standard.

The bus.

More importantly, our nation's school buses. Children depend on them to transport them to and from school and home every day. At my school, we even have shuttle buses that transport students between campuses. Some students will board the bus two to four times a day just to attend their classes. Yet, there are no seat belts to keep them safe. (excepting the driver)

Maintaining such strict laws that parents have been put on trial for not belting in their child properly is a useless practice if we do not transfer this strict attitude into our school systems. Why is it that safety stays at home when our children walk out the door? Schools take precautions such as IDs to know everyone in the building in lieu of the recent school shootings, but they do not act on their buses. Will it take accidents and deaths that could have been prevented by seat belts to ensure that school buses are made safe? Will these plastic IDs have to identify the bodies of our sons and daughters to persuade the districts that seat belts are a measure that needs to be taken?

Personally, I have no wish to wake up ready to take a three hour bus ride on my next field trip only to hear that a sweaty sports team or class of shiny eyed kindergarteners died the day before when the yellow danger rolled after a collision with a Mac truck. Our culture is conditioned to believe seat belts are necessity in automobiles but unnecessary on buses. What is it about a bus that isn't as dangerous as a car? Is it that studies show a bus is less likely to turn over with fifty students rather than fifteen? I don't see how it makes students sitting on the edge of seats or the floor safe. Or sitting so cramped that seat belts would require more buses, more money.

Funding isn't easy for schools to acquire, I concede. Of course, the funding will be near impossible to gain for the joint lawsuit against the school district and bus service waiting to leap out at the first sign of fatal danger.

Buses are the most efficient way to do our students a service, but we also must do their lives a service by adding seat belts. By ignoring this need, we disregard safety and student life. Prioritizing helping students get to school means very little if we are unable to guarantee they will make it to school alive and unscathed.

Image Citation:

• "School Bus Kids." N.p., n.d. Web. <http://i.ytimg.com/vi/VfAIUHNgmyE/hqdefault.jpg>.