Choosing Life over Death

            Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, three natural born, American rights that people in this country take for granted every day. But there are people in America who don’t feel as if they have these rights because they are terminally ill and cannot escape from the body that is trapping them. Some terminally ill patients decide that there is nothing left for them here and want to end their life but they can’t without going through drastic measures because it is against the law. Physician assisted suicide also known as physician assisted death and death with dignity, is when a patient request to die and the physician prescribes a lethal dose of a drug and gives it to the patient to take on their own time. Physician assisted suicide is unlike euthanasia because euthanasia involves the doctor physically giving the lethal dose to the patient. Everyone has a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, which is why physician assisted suicide, should be legalized in Vermont.

           

            Life. It’s a word we say every day, something we are a part of every day. Having the right to life and the right to live also means having the right to die. It clearly states in the fourteenth amendment of the Constitution that ‘Nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.’ No state is allowed, according to the Constitution, to take away the right someone has to their life. But what isn’t said as clearly is that if a person has right to their life they also have a right to the flip side, death. Terminally ill patients who want to die have a right to if they choose. Every person also has a right to their autonomy, which is their body. Each person has a right to their own body and what happens to it. But being diagnosed with a terminal illness isn’t something people get to choose but they should have the right to decide how to deal with the illness and if they decide that they aren’t going to be happy in at the time of their death they don’t want to remember life as it is for them at the present, they should be able to say when it needs to end. Legalizing physician assisted suicide in Vermont would allow the people who feel like this to make the decision they really want to, to feel like they are in control of their life instead of the illness.

            Liberty: The power or right of doing, thinking, speaking, etc., according to a choice. As stated in the definition anyone with the right to liberty has the power of doing, thinking and speaking depending upon a choice that is made. That choice could be eating an ice cream in the middle of the night even though you know you’re not supposed to, or changing your college major because you decided you like children better than adults or choosing to die because the world has dealt you a bad hand and you want to remember life when it was good. It is every Americans constitutional right to liberty and it is also stated in the Declaration of Independence. That people all over the country are trying to make this choice but the law is restricting them. Respect for the patient is a very critical thing too and dying is very personal and emotional experience. If people have the right and the power to make decisions like this they should be able to. People with incurable diseases aren’t going to change their mind about how they feel and holding them back is only going to make matters worse. The patient could choose to do something drastic that may end up harming other people. All American citizens have the power of liberty and if they choose to use it they shouldn’t be held back.

            Pursuit of Happiness, not a phrase used in everyday life, but it is thought about by everyone at least once a day, though most people may not realize it. As stated in the Declaration of Independence every person has the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. What most people don’t realize is that every day we think about the pursuit of happiness. Things as simple as what we are going to wear in the morning or what to eat. Because if we don’t pick something we like, we won’t be happy. But there are bigger things that have more of an effect on life. When people don’t get to choose what they want, it makes them feel depressed; the amount of depression varies depending on the situation. Some terminally ill people are trying to be happy but they can’t and the only thing that would help them would be to choose something they want and that would be to end their life, but they aren’t allowed make this decision and they won’t be happy until they do. In addition, the suffering of terminally ill patients is immense, both physical and physiological. But physician assisted suicide helps relive people of this pain and lets them enjoy the end of their life on earth knowing that they will be going to a better place. Happiness is a very important part of life and death. It is every Americans right to the pursuit of happiness and we shouldn’t be restricted from achieving it.

            Death is a very personal process and should be look upon as something that we get to decide if we have the chance. Every American has a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness so why shouldn’t these rights apply to death too? Terminally ill patients deal with a great deal of pain and depression and they should get the chance to end their life if they know there is nothing left for them and nothing more they can give to the world. Legalizing physician assisted suicide in Vermont would be beneficial to all people with an incurable disease and the people who are connected with the patient. Physician assisted suicide is not something that, if legalized, people will feel obligated to do. The patients will know when it is there time to die and they should be able to. Even though we have all these rights, people don’t really use them. Legalizing physician assisted suicide would initiate these rights and allow all Vermonters to feel like they have a chance to be happy and it would keep our state the unique and wonderful place that it is. 

           

Annotated Bibliography

Trial Search Research

Issue Explanation:

A person’s right to die has been a current issue that courts are arguing over. The courts are disagreeing because there isn’t a black and white answer to this issue; there is a lot of interpretation about when someone has the right to say they want to die, if they are even in the right state of mind at the time. The list keeps going, but there are arguments for physician assisted suicide and against it. Reasons for PAS are respect for the patient, dying is very personal and people should be able to choose when and how it happens. Justice, this requires that people “treat like cases alike”, because for some terminally ill patients they can refuse treatment to speed up death but other patients can’t use that as a form of death, their only option is suicide. The suffering of terminally ill patients is immense, both physical and physiological, PAS helps relieve some of that suffering. The common good wants to preserve life some people that are terminally ill have a very strong desire to end their life and they should be allowed this in some cases. PAS probably happens in secret all around the country, but if it was legalized then physicians and patients would be able to talk openly about the issue. It is also stated in the Declaration of Independence, everyone has the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

            The opposing arguments state that, some religions believe strongly against taking a humans life. People may feel pressured to choose PAS if they are struggling with money or feel that people don’t want them anymore. Historical ethical traditions of medicine are very opposed to taking a life. It is even stated in the Hippocratic Oath. People also think that if PAS is legalized it will put a harmful public image of the profession. But the main concern is that doctors will make mistakes. They could make a faulty diagnosis and prognosis; a patient who hears they are going to die in a few months might want to do it know, but they could really not have the disease at all. People may choose PAS and they may not really be sick.

Current Interpretation:

            Currently PAS or right to die is legalized in 3 states: Oregon, Montana and Washington. Oregon has had the law passed for the longest. Their law states that a person can qualify for PAS if they are a resident in Oregon, over the age of 18, they must be able to make decisions and be suffering from a terminal illness that will result in death in the next 6 months. The patient must then make one written and two oral requests for medication that will end their life. The written request must be signed by two witnesses that say this patient is capable of making this decision. The patient’s decision must be an informed one, which means the doctor has to clearly tell the patient the diagnosis, prognosis, possible risk and complications when seeking medical treatment and the alternative of avoiding treatment and using pain control. The doctor’s diagnosis has to be confirmed by another physician. There is also a need of a counselor if the patient seems to be suffering from a mental disorder that would impair their judgment.

http://www.leg.state.vt.us/reports/05death/death_with_dignity_report.htm#Section3

There are a few states, such as Vermont, New Hampshire, Michigan, Maine, Hawaii and California, have proposed to legalize PAS but have been over ruled every time by the people since 1992.

http://www.nightingalealliance.org/pdf/state_grid.pdf

Constitutional Connection

            PAS is connected to the Fourteenth Amendment. The Fourteenth Amendment states that ‘No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the Unites States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.’ Every person has a right to property, liberty and life unless they have gone to court and the issue is resolved there. The country is not allowed to take away these things unless a decision in court has been made. The right to die issue is difficult to determine if it is constitutional or not because every person has the right to life, liberty and property. Which means no one should die before they have to because they have a right to life. But it also says liberty, which means that people should have the liberty to choose when and how they die if they want.

Court Cases (see more in packet):

            One well known court case is Cruzan v. Missouri. Beth Cruzan was in a car accident and was able to breathe on her own but was in a comma and had to be feed through a tube. After a few weeks her parents wanted to end her life when it was clear she wasn’t going to wake up. But the hospital said they didn’t have the right to make that decision. The court ruled in favor of Missouri because the parents did not know for sure whether or not Beth wanted to die.

            Another case involves Washington v. Glucksberg. Dr. Harold Glucksberg and a group of people involving some other doctors and terminally ill patients filed a suit against Washington’s ban and PAS. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Washington. The court stated that they were protecting the U.S’s rights and liberties.

Interviews: 

1. Name: Angel Means, MS, RN, Director of End of Life Services

    Telephone: (802) 860-4410

    Email Address: means@vnacares.org

2. Name: Ursala Anne McVeigh, M.D.

    Telephone: (802) 847-5536

    Home/ Business Address: Medical Center Campus, 111 Colchester Avenue, Burlington VT, 05401

3. Death With Dignity Vermont

Panel Day Reflection:
    I thought that panel day was very interesting. I enjoyed hearing all of the panelists point of view on the topic of physician assisted suicide. In my room 

Dr. Robert Macauley

there where two panelists that were pro and two that were con. Dr. Macauley, a doctor and ethicist at Fletcher Allen and Claire Weis, a hospice nurse were both con. There arguments included information about how many people, according to the numbers in Oregon, would actually choose to have physician assisted suicide in Vermont. They also said a few things about how the relationship 

Dr. David Babbott

between patients and doctors would change because doctors would never be able to simply say “ what can i do for you?” without having the patient say something like help me die. The pro side consisted of retired Dr. Babbott and Marnie Wood, a
sister of a women who choose physician assisted suicide. They said that it would make the end of terminally ill patients lives so much more comfortable and if we do something similar with our pets why can’t we do this for our loved ones? They also said that not all doctors have to participate and no one, patients or doctors, will feel pressured to participate in the process of physician assisted suicide.

Marnie Wood

    I like how the panelists would debate with each other a little bit. I heard that the panelists in other rooms would just answer the same way or with one word answers. But in my room i felt they gave us good information and point of view. I wish they could have given us a bit more new information, but it was good to hear things first hand instead of reading them off the Internet. Dr. Babbott was fun to listen to, I liked how engaged he got with the audience and all of the facts he could say off the top of his head. Very interesting to listen to. Overall I think it was a good experience and it helped me understand my topic a little better.

Stakeholders:

The con side to physician assisted suicide has many points to support there side. They bring up four points. One: As seen in the Netherlands when they legalized assisted suicide in 1973. The country started abusing the law and one opposed doctor said that once we start using killing as a solution to one problem, tomorrow it will become the answer to a hundred problems. People also believe that eventually, if the law is legalized, the outlook on suicide will change from “bad” to “good’. Third, it would change the way doctors look at their sickest patients, if the patient were not around anymore money and health care supplies would be saved. Lastly, when terminally ill patients are approved for assisted suicide there is an implied message that their life is worth less than other suicidal people and their life is not worth being protected.

http://ic.galegroup.com/ic/ovic/ViewpointsDetailsPage/ViewpointsDetailsWindow?displayGroupName=Viewpoints&prodId=OVIC&action=e&windowstate=normal&catId=&documentId=GALE|EJ3010164284&mode=view

The pro physician assisted suicide side has done a lot of research to prove that death rates did not go up in the poor, elderly, women, minorities, uninsured persons, chronically ill and less educated patients, because the legalization of physician assisted suicide. A group of people working with the University of Utah found out that elderly people, women, and the uninsured living in the state of Oregon, did not die in disproportionate numbers since the law has been legalized. The same goes for minorities, the poor, minors, people with chronic physical or mental disabilities or chronic but not terminal illnesses. The rates of deaths have not spiked as a result of legalizing physician assisted suicide. Some people have also viewed the legalization of this law to be economically friendly. The cost of the lethal drug is $50 and the cost of keeping the average terminally ill patient alive until they die of natural causes is $500,000. There are two arguments that are very strongly rooted into American society, the first is the total right to personal autonomy, that people have an individual right to self-determination: the control of time, place and manner of death. The second is the belief that killing or ending a life is an acceptable answer to end suffering.

http://ic.galegroup.com/ic/ovic/ViewpointsDetailsPage/ViewpointsDetailsWindow?displayGroupName=Viewpoints&prodId=OVIC&action=e&windowstate=normal&catId=&documentId=GALE|EJ3010035291&mode=view    There are valid point for both sides and they both have strong evidence to back up their points. This is why it is such a controversial issue and why it hasn’t been decided as a state wide ban or law yet. But in Vermont it is in the legislature right now and will soon be decided.

Interview Reflection:

                I interviewed a woman named Angel Means who is the head of end of life care with the Vermont Nurses Association. I thought it was very interesting what she had to say. She told me the difference between palliative care and hospice care because I never really understood the difference before. I also learned that she was a respiratory therapist for 10 years before becoming a nurse. Hospice nurses really work on making sure that their patients are comfortable in their last months. A person can only have hospice care if they have 6 or fewer months left to live. The nurses will go to patients’ homes to help them and make sure they are comfortable.  Angel didn’t state her view on PAS, but said that she would rather focus her energy on making people more comfortable.

                My interview didn’t go exactly as planned because when I called Angel the line was busy. So I emailed her and she told me that she had a very busy day and that she is sorry she didn’t make it. But she told me that the best thing for her would be an email interview because she didn’t know when she would be able to talk on the phone for sure. But I still feel like I got good and interesting information from her even though it was in person or on the phone. She was very helpful. I didn’t think that not being able to talk over the phone was that big a deal because I don’t have a large problem talking to people I don’t know over the phone.

               

What I know before research:
Right to die is what it sounds. It is also known as physician assisted suicide (PAS). When a person has a terminal disease they have the right to “kill themselves” by refusing medication, starving oneself, or allowing a doctor to administer a lethal dose of a drug. A person would choose to do this because they know they are going to die soon and they don’t feel like living, or they want a peaceful death because they know that theirs will be painful. PAS will make someone’s last days more comfortable for them.

I would like to know more about the different sides for this issue. I am also a little confused on exactly what we will be writing our paper on at the end of trial search. I don’t know if I am supposed to pick a side; I’m not sure what point I am supposed to persuade people to agree with. This means I’m not sure what to research or what I should be looking for.