Physician-assisted death, also known as assisted suicide or death with dignity, is a hot button issue that has been picking up steam in recent years in regards to whether or not it should be legalized. There are no federal laws regarding assisted suicide, but it is legal in six states, California, Oregon, Montana, Vermont, Washington, and Colorado, as well as Washington DC. All but one of these state laws were passed within the past ten years. A lot of the debate surrounding physician-assisted death comes because people do not understand the restrictions of the laws, and/or have never put themselves in the place of someone who might be in a situation where it is the most desirable choice. The inhumanity of forcing someone who is terminally ill to live in unending pain and the government telling the people what they can and cannot do regarding their lives demonstrate the problem of physician-assisted suicide being illegal in most states. While some would argue it is immoral or it is a slippery slope to more severe problems, it is important to legalize physician-assisted suicide for the terminally ill.

Imagine finding out you have an untreatable malignant brain tumor. The unbearable headaches turn into severe seizures everyday. Hospice is an option but there is no guarantee that the pain will not become resistant to medication or stop the seizures. A drawn-out, painful death is inevitable. This is exactly what Brittany Maynard faced in 2014. She was a 29-year-old newlywed when she found out that she had brain cancer. The only potential treatment option was full brain radiation, which would have left her with first degree burns all over her scalp and had a very low chance of successfully getting rid of the tumor. Another option was passing away in hospice care but even then she could have developed morphine-resistant pain and suffered extreme personality changes. In an article she wrote for CNN, she summarized her situation, “Because the rest of my body is young and healthy, I am likely to physically hang on for a long time even though cancer is eating my mind. I probably would have suffered in hospice care for weeks or even months. And my family would have had to watch that. (Maynard Paragraph 8)”  It would have been hard to find someone willing to look her in the eye and tell her “No, you have to die like that, even though you can die on your own terms before things take a turn for the worst.” There is a certain point where a distinguishable line has to be drawn between living, and prolonging the dying process for as long as possible. 

Eventually, she discovered the death with dignity laws but had to uproot her family and move to Oregon because it was not legal in her home state of California. Establishing residency was not easy and would have been much more difficult for most people because not everyone has the “flexibility, resources, and time to make these changes. (Maynard Paragraph 12)” In other words, it essentially is not even an option for lower-income families and had she not been so lucky, she would have suffered more than she deserved to, the same way less lucky people in her situation do everyday.

 Not all situations where assisted suicide is relevant are as simple and straightforward as in Brittany Maynard’s case. Sometimes people endure horrific accidents that leave them in a vegetative or semi-vegetative state. In these situations, most people would agree that if you can keep them alive then you should because they cannot give their consent one way or another. (Note: Even in the states where death with dignity is legal, the patient must be conscious and be deemed mentally fit to make such a decision on their own.) However, when you look at specific scenarios at a more personal level, it makes the conversation a bit more complicated. A perfect example of this is Lu Spinney and her son Miles. Miles had been a bright, young man, described by his mother as “loving life” and “an adventurer.” This all changed when he got in a horrific snowboarding accident that left him in a “minimally conscious state.” This meant he lived in fluctuating consciousness and was aware of what was going on but could not speak or move with purpose. Eventually, everyone, including his family and two doctors, agreed that they could tell that he did not want to continue. They could see it in his eyes and in the few mannerisms he had left. Unfortunately, death with dignity is illegal in England (where they lived) and even if it was legal, there was nothing they would have been able to do because of the state he was in. Imagine being stuck in your own body: completely aware of everything going on around you but unable to react, respond, move, or speak. Is it humane to force someone to live like that? Is it even less humane to end their life without expressed consent? These are the questions that need to be answered in order for any progress to be made.

Human beings are naturally autonomous, meaning that they can think and do for themselves. This is something that most people find to be an integral part of the quality of their lives. Most people would say that a life where they cannot take care of themselves or make their own decisions anymore is as close to a life not worth living than any. A study done by the New England Journal of Medicine, based on information from Canada’s University Health Network in Toronto, proved this this past year. They looked at the 74 people who inquired about aid in dying in the late stages of terminal diseases like cancer or ALS and most of them listed psychological suffering as their reason for doing so (Li Second Subtitle.) A University of Toronto researcher, Madeline Li, described this as “existential distress. (Cha Paragraph 9)” “Their quality of life is not what they want. They are mostly educated and affluent — people who are used to being successful and in control of their lives, and it’s how they want their death to be (Cha Paragraph 9).” Even for those who are not necessarily educated and affluent, they are used to being in control of their lives, so when anyone gets to the point where they are entirely dependant on others and death is imminent they would at least like to know that death with dignity is an option. One of the patient’s was a professor who valued his intellect over all else He had a brain tumor and did not want to the point where he essentially was no longer present and had lost his mind (Cha Paragraph 12.) Canada’s Medical Assistance in Dying law requires a person to be under the national health insurance program, which disproves one of the greatest concerns with these laws, that it would be forced on the poor or uninsured (Cha Paragraph 13.)

The broader, more political issue here is the government inserting itself so much deeper into the personal lives of its civilians than it needs to. When it comes to making decisions about our own lives that do not harm others, the government should not be allowed to tell us what we can and cannot do. This is not choosing to take someone else’s life, it is choosing to take someone’s own life to escape the physical and psychological pain that comes with, and increases in severity with terminal diseases. Personal and religious views are perfectly fine to have and exercise in one’s own life but when a person is in a position of power and imposes those beliefs on an entire state or country, preventing citizens to make their own decisions regarding their own lives that might go against those of the person in power, there is a problem.

As is the case with every moral issue, there are two sides to the debate and both sides stand very firmly with their opinions. Those who are opposed to death with dignity often cite human life as being invaluable and under no circumstances should we be okay with taking it away. Focusonthefamily.com, a pro-life website, posted an article, “Reasons to Oppose Physician-Assisted Suicide,” detailing the concerns that a lot of people have with legalizing assisted suicide. This publication is obviously very biased, as they are outwardly pro-life, but many people who are in opposition hold very similar views. 

Their first concern is that “Acceptance of physician-assisted suicide sends the message that some lives are not worth living (Reasons to Oppose Physician-Assisted Suicide Third Subtitle)” This argument completely disregards the entire purpose behind the death with dignity movement. It is not about other people’s perception of the value of “some lives.” It is about the people living those lives’ perception of the quality of their own life. No one is trying to devalue any lives; they are trying to give people the right to make their own choices about their own lives. 

Their second concern is “Physician assisted suicide creates legal opportunity for hidden elder abuse (RTOPAS Fourth Subtitle.)” This is a common argument made by people who just have a general understanding of the laws and do not know the details. Firstly, two medical physician have to give a prognosis of six months or less, so someone is not eligible just because they are old. Secondly, the patient has to make the request themself, two times, 15 days apart. No matter what any family members do or say, the prescription will not be written unless the patient asks for it.

Their next argument, “There are better medical alternatives (RTOPAS Seventh Subtitle,)” is a very valid one for many, if not most people. Most people do not have to endure unbearable, “morphine-resistant,” pain and the end-of-life care offered to them makes them as comfortable as possible. However, this is not all people. Brittany Maynard should not be forced to suffer hundreds of severe seizures because most people are able to live comfortably at the end of their lives.

The final argument this article presents states that “The practice of physician-assisted suicide threatens to destroy the delicate trust relationship between doctor and patient (RTOPAS Eight Subtitle.)” This argument is perhaps the most misguided of them all. To think that legalizing physician-assisted suicide would give cause to believing our doctors are not trustworthy anymore is disrespectful to the men and women who have devoted their lives to helping people. Doctors would not just all of the sudden become murderous and start offing people with these laws in place. The truth is that physicians already have access to drugs that could end people’s lives, and these laws do not make it any more legal to give those drugs to someone against their will.

Unlike a lot of other moral issues facing our country today, the death with dignity debate has a simple solution when it comes to policy making. Either look at the laws already in place in the six states where physician-assisted suicide is legal and apply them at a federal level or continue at a state level. A patient must have a prognosis of 6 months or less, be 18 years of age or older, and give two oral requests to a physician along with one written. A primary physician must make sure a patient qualifies, as well as a consulting physician. More regulations would not be opposed but these are a good place to start, as they have been working just fine for the six states where it is legal. It is crucial to understand that no one is forcing this on anyone. Anyone who qualifies and does not wish to exercise the law is perfectly fine to do so; it is simply there to give people a choice. Ultimately, everyone should want the same things: to have complete control over their own lives and to not be forced to be tortured to death by their own bodies, and that is exactly what these laws do.