No one ever wants to hear the words, “You have about six months left to live, which, if you follow through with treatment, will be full of pain and suffering.” Now imagine hearing this at 29, shortly after your wedding, just as you are beginning to settle down and start a family.
Brittany Maynard, a former resident of California, was in this situation. She was diagnosed with Stage 4 brain cancer. Instead of spending in treatment the little time she had left, Maynard moved to Oregon, where she could utilize the state’s Death with Dignity Act.
This law allowed Maynard to choose when and how she would die, instead of letting nature take its painful course. She spent the final days of her life traveling with her family, instead of in a chemotherapy chair getting pumped with toxins. Maynard made her story public in the hopes of inspiring other states to allow terminally ill patients the choice of how they die in these unique circumstances.
California has heard her plea.
Jan. 20, state Senators Lois Wolk and Bill Monning introduced Senate Bill No. 128, named “End of Life.” The California Legislative Information website explains how this bill would allow mentally competent state residents with less than six months to live the opportunity to die by physician-prescribed drugs, which would end patients’ lives when they choose to ingest them.
The patients would need to have two doctors verify their terminal condition before being prescribed the drugs. Those using the law would also be required to give two oral declarations of their decision 15 days apart and provide a written statement with a minimum of two witnesses’ signatures.
Everyone has a personal perspective on death and the effects of this particular issue, causing it to be a very emotional debate.
I had never heard of the Death with Dignity Act nor the right to die laws until I followed Maynard’s story in the news.
At first, I was very uncomfortable with her decision. Maybe I felt this because I have a deep-seated fear of death, or maybe it was because it reminded me of the time I euthanized my dog. To me, that was exactly what Maynard was doing. She was putting herself down because she was in pain or she knew she would be in it if she continued with treatment.
I wanted so badly to tell her how she was so much more than my beloved dead dog. She had a soul, and for me, hastening and controlling the death of it was not “dying with dignity,” but rather undignified.
I had to remind myself how not everyone sees it that way. I am still in the process of figuring out where to put my faith, whether that be Christianity, Buddhism, agnosticism or another religion, I am not yet sure. However, the point is, I do believe there is something after this life, and I believe there is a purpose for me being here.
The fact that I was born with a natural desire to know a creator makes me believe there is a divine being who instilled it. Many famous philosophers argue that the only difference between humans and animals is that we have more complex brains and nervous systems. If this is true, then there is no value in suffering.
Yet, even if you do believe in a soul, does that truly justify suffering?
Some believe the very reason humans have souls is reason enough to further this bill and avoid suffering through the power of pills. Therefore, the fundamental question is: Does suffering rob someone of their dignity or can suffering ennoble the person?
“It is hard to put the justification for suffering into words,” said Dr. Stephen Parise, adjunct professor in the Department of Theology and Philosophy. “It is hard for me to find the words to describe the kind of spiritual uplifting that occurs in suffering without demeaning it. There is a perseverance, a wisdom, an insight, a seriousness, and so much more that comes from suffering. Suffering ennobles the soul.
“It is like how certain metals are refined through the fire. Gold, for example, is of higher value when it is put through more pressure and more fire. In suffering, while you are losing your body, and losing your mind, you are also gaining something deeper, because this world is not all that there is.”
Another debated aspect of this bill is whether or not we should give doctors the power to prescribe these lethal medications as it goes against the Hippocratic Oath to try to heal the ill and other ethical standards most graduating medical students swear by.
The modern version of the Hippocratic Oath that many physicians swear by reads: “Most especially must I tread with care in matters of life and death. If it is given me to save a life, all thanks. But it may also be within my power to take a life; this awesome responsibility must be faced with great humbleness and awareness of my own frailty. Above all, I must not play at God.”
Unless you take a more deistic approach to God, I think many would agree that if there is a God, then he should have the authority to bring us in and take us out of this world.
Senate Bill No. 128 allows physicians, pharmacists and health care facilities to opt out of prescribing this pill. Senior psychology major Mary Goral expresses her concern for the doctors who choose to opt in.
“I don’t think doctors can emotionally handle [prescribing these pills] at times,” Goral said. “They all come from different walks of life, so for them to prescribe this to a patient seems detrimental to their emotional health. I see doctors as people who care about you, I also see friends as people who care about you, and I wouldn’t just ask someone I trust to prescribe me this because I want to die. It seems like an inhuman thing to ask of anyone, whether they went through medical school or not.”
While actively ending someone’s life can be a traumatic experience for a health care provider, sometimes seeing the pain of patients is just as detrimental to the worker’s own emotional health. Freshman nursing major Sabrina Odlum describes how neither call is an easy decision.
“This is a hard topic, especially when you bring your faith into it, but I think that it should be every individual’s decision,” Odlum said. “Right now, hospitals can’t administer that drug, but when a patient is in hospice care, they do everything they can to make that patient comfortable. However, even with all of the morphine, patients are still in a lot of pain, which I think is just as hard to see as someone ending their life with this pill.”
Even if an individual does figure out where to stand on Senate Bill No. 128, the measure’s path to passage is not only difficult, but lengthy. The first committee hearing is scheduled for March 25.
America prides itself on being a democracy where individuals are given the right to self-govern. Some Christians argue that although they disagree with actively ending a life, it is not their right or the government’s right to decide for other individuals. However, other Christians say that if they support this bill they will be against what their creator intended.
God gave people free will, so by going against the “right to die,” are Christians taking away the public’s right to utilize its free will or are they obeying their God?
At the end of the day, everyone thinks that what they are putting their faith into is right. However, a big part of being an American is the ability to decide for yourself what constitutes your beliefs.
I don’t think it would be ethical to decide for someone else if they should be allowed to take this pill or not. Instead of taking away each individuals right to decide on how they want to die, Christians and people who believe that there is dignity in the suffering of one’s soul should focus on encouragement.
It is reasonable to assume that people will look into each option if they are given the choice presented by Senate Bill No. 128. This will allow for Christians and spiritual people in general to be able to share their beliefs to the public in a more effective manner. However, if people vote against it based on their religion, then the ones who are dying from terminal illness are more likely to resent religion in their suffering.