deathwithdignity

The Serenity of Death

Terminally ill patients, who suffer excruciating pain, face obstacles when they decide take their life. The government doesn’t allow them to perform euthanasia on themselves and healthcare professionals are against it because of work ethics. These patients try to legalize euthanasia or physician assisted suicide (PAS), so they can no longer deal with their illness. Not only do these patients have to deal with the pain of their illness, but they have to face the negative views people have about their decision.

People need to understand the agony the ill are going through and how they’re not the only ones suffering through the process. Their loved ones have to see the effect of the illness, and how every day their becoming more helpless. By legalizing PAS the grief and suffering will end for the ill and their loved ones. The medication needed to manage their pain is expensive, so it takes a financial toll on them. Those not able to afford the medication have no source of relieving their pain so their suffering is continuous. If the medication they’re taking doesn’t even help them, they’re losing money that they didn’t start off with.

To force the terminally ill to continue living is very cruel and inhumane. They should have the sole right to their life, and decide if they want the aid to end their life. Terminally ill should decide when and how they want to die. Instead they have to fight the government just so they can end their life, and at times they have to go to court to get permission. Even though others believe they should end their life on their own, but with the help of the healthcare providers they will die in a dignified matter without suffering in their last moments. Those who are against euthanasia believe the ill are rejecting the life that was given to them, but it’s not that their ungrateful for the life that they had but the suffering is no longer tolerable. Though the legalization of euthanasia will benefit the terminally ill, some people are right there is a possibility that healthcare providers might abuse PAS and take advantage of their patients by taking their life without their consent.

In the United States, Oregon, Washington, and Montana are the only states that have legalized the practice PAS. Instead of doctors taking advantage of their terminally ill patients, the health care provided to them has improved significantly. The physicians have improved communication wise with their patients and are better about managing the pain their patient is going through. Euthanasia still remains uncommon in these states, but the terminally ill doesn’t have to worry about PAS being illegal.

The solution is for the government to let the states vote on rather or not they want PAS. Some states in the U.S don’t really discuss the issue of euthanasia, so by voting the government will see the citizens’ true views on PAS. If people were to vote on euthanasia being legalized in their states less people will suffer and not put them in debt. Probably religious groups and others will protest at these PAS facilities.

It’s important that people care that euthanasia should legalized, because many of these patients are left to suffer endless pain. No one is able to realize the suffering that they’re going through, so they see no point in the terminally ill taking their life. If euthanasia were to be legalized the terminally ill will feel more at ease, because they don’t have to worry about the pain, their financial status, and their family suffering with them as well.

Euthanasia: Hope you never need it, but be glad the option is there

By Dr. Philip Nitschke, pro-euthanasia advocate, Special to CNN

Updated 12:29 PM ET, Wed November 27, 2013

The controversial case of locked-in syndrome sufferer Tony Nicklinson revived the euthanasia debate in the UK.

The controversial case of locked-in syndrome sufferer Tony Nicklinson revived the euthanasia debate in the UK.

Story highlights

Belgian MPs may allow terminally ill children and those with dementia access to euthanasia

Pro-euthanasia advocate Dr. Philip Nitschke says debate must avoid moral panic, dogma

Nitschke: If a patient's suffering cannot be relieved, what should the State do?

"I hope no one I love will ever need to use such laws, but draw comfort from them"

The time was always going to come when society would need to face the pointy end of the voluntary euthanasia debate: Those hard cases that would challenge most people's support for the issue, the cases and circumstances which constitute never-before trodden ground.

While in most Western countries polls repeatedly show strong community support for a terminally ill person's right to obtain medical assistance to die, the results would likely be quite different if the person involved was not an adult, was not of sound mind or was not, in the strictest sense, terminally ill.

As Belgium decides whether to extend the right to euthanasia to those who have Alzheimer's and to children, the sharp end of the debate is staring us all in the face, regardless of where we live.

The euthanasia argument is about to escalate to heights unknown: We will all be challenged about how to have a good debate, a rational debate as members of the human race, and in being challenged, we must guard against the moral panic that this issue will inevitably throw up.

The issues on the table are too important for hysterical indignation and fundamental religious dogma. We are all grown-ups. The debate we are set to have -- some two decades after the world's first right to die law was passed in Australia's Northern Territory -- should be grown-up too, even if some of the stakeholders we are about to discuss are not.

Historically, children and people with Alzheimer's are two segments of the community that have been viewed as having little or no agency, something that is referred to as 'capacity' in legal terms. Generally speaking, neither group has been held to be competent to make decisions that would be in their best interests. Yet this is what the Belgians are now planning.

The opposite view: Euthanasia - we can live without it...

For many in the ageing population, there are few fears which top that of getting dementia. Anyone who has watched a loved family member sink into the abyss of confusion and disorientation will know the utter terror that can accompany the process, as the person in question tries to juxtapose moments of clarity with the awfulness of knowing one's grip on reality -- and with it one's dignity and sense of self -- is slipping.

In New Zealand earlier this year, the Labor Member of Parliament Maryan Street paved the way with her private members bill which, if passed, would allow New Zealanders to include an assisted suicide in their Living Will.

For those who may find themselves with Alzheimer's in future, this inclusion would be a valuable pre-planning tool: "If I do get dementia, at least the children will know what I want. I can now rest assured that my wishes not to live "like that" will be respected."

Within the membership of Exit International, this is a common sentiment. So too is the wish not to waste government money keeping the demented elderly alive in the nation's care homes if that is not how, when they could communicate, they said they wanted to spend their last days.

On the topic of children, the debate is a little easier. Some children do develop terminal illnesses and do die well before their time. It is not impossible for such young people to have a well-developed sense of their own mortality.

While the Belgians will likely structure legislative developments in this area with stringent safeguards, it is the practice of forcing terminally-ill children to battle on in spite of an appalling prognosis, trying to make it to 18, that is driving the agenda.

For both groups, the Belgians are bravely tackling difficulties emerging in their existing legislation, current laws that are quite obviously inadequate, even cruel, in certain circumstances.

Unless modern medicine has a cure for Alzheimer's and any number of the terminal illnesses that confront children, the current situation is that they will keep suffering.

If suffering cannot be relieved, the question then becomes: what should the State do? Should we all be forced to live on regardless of the quality of life that confronts us? Or, should legislation be extended to ensure dignity and choice for all?

At Exit International our motto is "a peaceful death is everybody's right." Somehow the tagline "a peaceful death is everybody's right unless you are a child or a teenager or have dementia, in which case tough luck!" doesn't have the same appeal or the same logic.

The Belgians are to be applauded for their progressive thinking and acting -- in the cold light of day, the morality of their intentions is not that challenging when the alternatives are considered.

As a son to my aged mother and as a grandfather to my son's three boys, I welcome the type of society that the Belgians are proposing. Of course, I hope no one I love will ever need to use such laws. But I draw great comfort from knowing they are there all the same.