Here's the Google search with a bunch of articles:
https://news.google.com/news/story?ncl=http://www.cnn.com/2014/11/02/health/oregon-brittany-maynard/&hl=en&geo=US
Oregon's role in this debate
http://www.htrnews.com/story/opinion/editorials/2014/11/06/editorial-oregon-led-death-dying-debate/18603779/
Vatican Response
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2014/nov/03/brittany-maynard-us-right-to-die-laws
Here is another really good response that I found a few weeks ago, before Brittany took her life. I really like the line towards the end where he says, "By dying on one’s “own terms,” death seems more comfortable in our culture that is sanitized and tends to avoid any mention of the suffering and death that will eventually come to us all." because I think it really relates to what we always talk about in class. Death is often considered taboo and people just do not like to talk about it, but being more open about death and suffering is important because it is inevitable and there are so many issues surrounding it that it is important to discuss with family.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.dioceseofraleigh.org/content/raleigh-seminarian-terminal-brain-cancer-responds-brittany-maynard
I have to start out by saying that I still struggle with whether her decision to end her own life is right or wrong. As of now, I feel that she has the right to end her life on her own terms, especially if that means she avoids terminal suffering. That being said, I really enjoyed the article Kristin and found it to be extremely thought provoking. Father Johnson provided a very interesting take on her situation and it provided a lot of new things to consider and deliberate on. Thanks for posting this!
DeleteAs i spoke about in class i support the legalization of PAS for all states because of cases such as Brittany who had her mind already made up and had to move to another state and bring her whole family with her. As Oregon has showed us having PAS legalized with certain safe guard laws to protect both physician and patient it can work. It also gives more education to health care providers in the different choices a patient can make. This is a very tough decision to decide when to end your life when you have a terminal illness. Having this option can help patient and families decide what is best.
ReplyDeleteEmily,
DeleteI agree with what you are saying. Oregon has shown that it takes PAS very seriously since it is legalized there and there are many laws that go with it in order to make it work. More people need to be educated on this situation so they may be more familiar with it and realize it isn't a situation that is taken lightly and that it is very serious and they make sure with legalizing it that they let those who do talk about PAS as an option with their families that they know what they are doing by agreeing to partake in PAS.
I do think that Oregon has proven that PAS can be controlled and that legalization does not result in dramatic increases in PAS rates. While I think it could benefit to legalize PAS in all states so families do not have to move and people with terminal illnesses can have control of their death.
DeleteHowever, one of the articles brought up the fact that one organization spent 7 million dollars on trying to legalize PAS. I think this number is crazy and could be spent on more charitable things.
I think that she did the right thing. She made a decision she thought was best and followed through with it. She was willing to accept she was going to die. I do not feel like she made a selfish decision like some people may say in choosing this way to die because she was probably thinking of her family and friends when she made the decision. She wanted to spend the time with her family doing fun things and making new memories. She didn't want her family to remember her while she was suffering, she wanted her family to remember her as a strong individual. I think that it is important for people to become more aware of PAS and for people to study it so they know what it is and realize why those who have made this decision like Brittany truly thought it was best for them although it may not be best for everyone.
ReplyDeleteChelsey,
ReplyDeleteI 100% agree with everything you have just said. I, just like you feel like Brittany Maynard did the right thing; by making the decision that was best for her. I also think that Brittany did not make a selfish decision because first of all it was her choice and also because like you said she was probably thinking of her family and friends when she made the decision. Another thing I liked that you said was, that you think it is important for people to become more aware of PAS and for people to study it so they know what it is and realize why certain people have made that decision like Brittany. I totally agree and feel like people today need to understand that PAS is not really a bad thing. For instance, like I said in class people have the right to choose who they marry, what school they go to, what major they want to declare in, etc. so why not have the right to do PAS. Overall, I think what Brittany did was fine and that it was the right choice on her part, even though people may not agree.
Despite all of the controversy with the issue on PAS, I think she was very courageous in making the decision to use PAS. I think this decision caused her less physical and emotional suffering, because I do remember reading that she said it did give her peace in getting to choose her time to die. I think that decision caused her family less suffering as well. She also had the support of her family in her decision to use PAS, which I think helped her as well. One thing about human nature is that we always want to know more, especially when it comes to our own future, including death. In her decision to choose her time to die, in a sense gave her some control and knowing that she would not have otherwise. If she did not go through with PAS, then she would not know when her time to go would be and she wouldn't have any control in the situation. In my opinion, PAS was beneficial for her and her family.
ReplyDeleteI read the article about the Vatican's response to Brittany Maynard's decision and I am torn both ways between her decision and the Vatican's response. The amount of money being spent by parties supporting and rejecting physician assisted suicide is astonishing. The Compassion & Choice Organization spending $7 million a year to protect the practice in states where it has been legalized and to to help pass legislation where it is not is kind of crazy if you ask me. The online fund raising $75,000 for Maynard will go directly to supporting the issue in California. While this story had a lot of coverage all over the world it doesn't sound like it picked up a lot of steam in terms of passing in legislature according to this article. It is a tough topic to discuss and the more I read about it I am not sure where I stand on this issue.
ReplyDeleteCraig,
DeleteI agree with you when you say that you do not know where you stand on the issue. I also am having a difficult time deciding what I believe. I think that there is benefits as well as downsides. I too thought that spending 7 million dollars was astounding. I think that there are much more noble causes to spend 7 million dollars on than PAS. However, I think that it is important that people stand up for what they believe in, I just think it is a shame that that much money is being spent on PAS when could be doing so much more.
I don't know about anyone else but it really bothers me that money plays such an important role when it comes to death and dying. The more we learn in class and the more we discuss about end of life care and PAS, the role that money plays saddens me. Like Vincent Barry said in the textbook in Chapter 11, appropriate end of life care should not just be for the wealthy but for all, as we are all people. I know this was not directed towards PAS, but the basic concept is still the same. Money should not be the driving force in these extremely important decisions that many of us have to make.
DeleteIn regards to the Brittany Maynard case I would have to side fully with Monsignor Ignacio Carrasco de Paula in that her decision was "reprehensible". The act of suicide, whether assisted or otherwise, is always deserving of condemnation. It can never be morally justified. One might argue that she used suicide to ease her suffering as though that would justify such an action. A moral wrong can never be used to achieve a good. This therefore removes any use of the principal of double effect to justify the act of suicide. Another argument that could be made for her actions is that it is her life and she can decide when she dies. Is that the case however? What right does she or anybody else have in choosing when they die? Did she bring herself into being? Did she giver herself life? No, she did not. As such why should she have the right to choose when it ends? It is a foolish idea to think that she should have that right. What gave you life is what has the right to give you death. Whether that is God, nature, or whatever you want to believe is up to you. It matters not what you choose to believe as the outcome is the same for them all. Something outside of you has given you life and when the time comes it will give you death. Her situation was most certainly a very sad one. To have a terminal illness at such a young age is always going to be a sad situation. However that does not give her the right to choose when her life ends. It is saddening to see so many resources going towards the promotion of assisted suicide under the guise of offering choices for people so that they might have a good death. It might do us well to review that which the Hippocratic Oath has to say on such matters.
ReplyDeleteTyler,
DeleteThis is perhaps the best worded response I have read on here regarding this topic. I appreciate that you do not stand on one particular religious platform, as that would crumble the moment an individual of another faith entered the argument. You came from a purely philosophical argument that is appreciable by everyone. I 100% agree with you that even with religious morality aside, no one has the right to end their life. I do not see what Brittany did as courageous, but rather as something deplorable and cowardly. We can use all the fluffy terminology we want, but at the end of the day, she was put down like a sick animal would be to escape a less than desirable dying experience. There were other options, but she chose merely not to live anymore. This is not the human way and, as you said, is "deserving of condemnation."
Tyler, once again you crafted a very good argument and your ideas are quite sound. I hope to challenge you on an important point you made and that is that you said she does not have the right to choose how her life ends. It may be argued that this is not a religious statement, but i feel that it is definitely influenced by a strong religious belief. That being said, did God not give people the ability to choose in the form of free will? Did he not put the tree of the knowledge of good and evil in the garden of eden and tell adam and eve not to eat of it? Why would He have done that, if not to give them the ability to choose?
DeleteOnce again, my stance on this subject is still one I am trying to figure out myself. I just feel that it is important to be extremely clear on what is being said and the arguments that each of us make in this debate. That being said, once again you crafted a very well thought out argument.
After reading the Vatican's response, I agree that Brittany did not have the right to end her life, even if it was on her terms. Brittany choose to end her life and therefore she committed suicide. I don't believe that suicide is ever the answer to anyone's problem, even if you have a terminal illness. Personally, if I had a terminal illness I would want to spent my remaining days with my family and living my life to the fullest. When I would begin to get sick or experience the symptoms of dying, there are palliative care expertise to take care of me and make me comfortable while I am dying.
ReplyDeleteThis whole argument to me after reading responses does not really address the actual issue. The main argument made on this case has roots in a particular religious denomination; therefore, the question should not be is it morally correct but rather does one have the human right to die? I believe if we address the actual issue then the answer is yes. She did have a right to take her life for it is a personal choice in pursuit of self control. A religious justification does not advance the argument unless we are suggesting that laws should be decided within a religious framework, but that would go against the fabric of our society.
ReplyDeleteIt would appear that my response to the question of the right to die has been lost on you. I would like to point out that I argued from a position that is not set in any particular religious background. My argument was based on the idea that no human has created their own life. As such they owe their life to something else. This idea is not intrinsically religious as I do not say what that something is. That something could be anything from God to something in nature. Even the most avid atheist would have to agree that something outside of themselves gave them life. Does that which gives us life have the right to decide when it ends? I would argue that it is only that which gives us life that has the right to decide when it ends. It is at this point that we seem to be at odds. Allow me to offer an example to illustrate what I am trying to say. Suppose that you are a sculptor who has been hired to carve a statue from a block of marble. The marble, your tools, and the space provided to work have all been provided for you from your employer. Part of the way through you become upset with how difficult your job has become. Does that give you the right to push the partially completed statue over and destroy it? Clearly it doesn't as it is not yours. However if your employer came in and decided that he didn't want the statue anymore it would definitely be in his right to destroy the partially completed statue as it belongs to him. It is the same way with human life. That which gave us life can decide that it should end at whatever point it decides on. That is the right that comes with having given the life. To end your life prematurely would be to assume a right that is most certainly not yours. You seem to hold the view that we have the right to decide when we die "for it is a personal choice in pursuit of self control". This argument is a dangerous one to make. It opens up a whole range of activities that are generally discouraged. The most applicable to this argument is suicide in general. If we are to say that a terminally ill patient has the right to decide when they die then why should we protect against any suicide since they could all be argued as being in "pursuit of self control"? A common argument for assisted suicide is that it will alleviate suffering. However there are more people suffering than just the terminally ill. Should the right to commit suicide be opened up to any person that deems themselves to be suffering in the "pursuit of self control"? Clearly it should not. The right to die is something that cannot be argued from a view of the "pursuit of self control". That argument is too flimsy. I could just as easily argue that heroin use should be permitted as its use allows for the "pursuit of self control". Why then if we will not permit heroin use on the grounds of it being a "pursuit of self control" would we allow assisted suicide? Heroin use may destroy a life and lead to death while assisted suicide most certainly leads to death. If we are going to argue for extreme autonomy in choosing when we die then it would necessitate that we should argue for the same level of autonomy in how we live, however we do not allow such an extreme level of autonomy in life. I hope that this explains my argument more fully so as to offer you an argument that is not set in a particular religious tradition.
DeleteAs an aspiring health care professional, I have a hard time with the phrase "the right to die." To me, this makes it seem like the physician has some moral obligation to fulfill the role of an angel of death whether he wants to or not. If we say it is the patient's RIGHT to die, then that means no one should have the means of hindering it. I have a problem with the relationship of doctor and patient becoming one of the killer and the useless life. To me, PAS says to the patient that the healthcare team agrees that their life is not worth living anymore. This, to me, is the antithesis of the object of the healthcare world. The nature of the physician is one to heal or to remove pain when nothing else can be done. I know the argument is that assisting the patient to suicide is relieving pain, but if we can simply allow a human being to be "put down" like an animal, where does the line draw? What about those patients that do not want PAS but are suffering just the same. If it is their RIGHT to die, should they be put down anyway to avoid pain and suffering? I know this is controversial and I am NOT attempting to step on any toes or offend anyone, but as someone who has been with People I loved through quick dying experiences as well as long and sorrowful ones, this is how I feel about the topic.
ReplyDeleteCody I really like the argument you provided. You know me though, I am going to offer you a counter point, as I so often do on these things. For years I thought that the role of a physician is to heal or remove pain but the more I think about it, it is not pain that a physician heals, but rather suffering. To me, the role of a physician is to heal the suffering of his/her patients (strictly following the laws that have been put in place by society and the board) to the best of his/her ability. So, if a patient's life is going to be consumed by suffering and a physician has the ability (provided it is legal) to end that suffering, is it really wrong? I understand there are moral issues with the argument and religious issues as well. But just looking at this from the point of a physician, is it really wrong?
DeleteI respect her for making a decision and sticking to it. It must be extremely difficult to make the decision to end your own life, and to face this kind of attention at the same time does not help. Through all of the attention, however, she has "stuck to her guns" and didn't let the media or other peoples' opinions sway her into not going through with it.
ReplyDelete