Death with Dignity Act: How Does Society Respond?

Death With Dignity Act: How Does Society Respond?

Euthanasia is a delicate situation in many states. This topic is very controversial and has a lot of feelings behind it. Euthanasia is the killing if someone for their benefit. This act is only legal in two states in America and that is New York and Washington State. There is a law set forth in Washington called the Washington suicide law. Even though euthanasia is legal in Washington, there is still controversy about the law and how it makes the physicians feel to administer such an act. This Washington act is a good act because it gives people the choice to decide if they want the drug.

Physician assisted suicides for terminally ill patients who were at least 18 years of age were ruled legal in Washington The full requirements to get the lethal drugs include, the patient being 18, declared mentally stable, a state resident, the patient has to make two oral request, submit a written request witnessed by two people, two doctors must certify that the patient has a terminal condition, and less than six months to live (New Zealand Herald). The vote was 58 to 42 percent. The 9th circuit ruled that people in their right mind have the right to choose a "dignified and humane death" (Legal in 2 states). The law that was made was the Washington Death with Dignity Act. They limited it to people in their right mind because people who are not are believed not to be able to make conscious decisions like ending their life (First Death).

Even though the Act was made and there are more Washington voters supporting it, there is still some controversy between doctors, politicians and religious groups. "It is a murky issue for politicians on either side, to be for or against it," said Peg Morrison. Also there was a 1991 proposal that previously failed related to physician assisted suicides. The new law doesn't allow doctors to give the drug unlike the previously failed law. With this law, the doctor can only prescribe the drug and the person has to take the medicine orally. The supporters are feeling more comfortable about this law because this is the first initiative made by the Supreme Court since 2006. As stated earlier there are a lot of supporters for this act in the midst of the confusion and controversy (State Ballot).

There is one particular supporter by the name of Booth Gardner who is 72. He is suffering from Parkinson's disease. He was not able to rely on the act because he did not qualify but he hopes that people later on will be able to use it even though their disease is not terminal (State Ballot). Even though their disease is not terminal, if they are suffering they should have that choice to have the lethal drug. Only the patient knows what they are going through and if the pain is that severe then sometimes they feel that is their only option. People do not like to suffer.

Under the Washington proposal two doctors would have to determine that a patient would have to have six months to live before they can be administered a lethal drug ending their life. An example was a guy named Chris Carlson who was the chairman of a group who was against the new act. He found out that he had terminal carcinoid cancer in 2005 and was told that he most likely had less than six months to live. Now he is 61 and says his cancer is not active at this moment. "You're encouraging people to prematurely give up hope, and I think that's wrong," he said. He didn't think the state should encourage people to give up hope (State Ballot). This is not encouraging people to give up hope; it is simply allowing them the choice to end their suffering. The law is giving people a choice. It is their decision if they decide to take advantage of it. If the doctor told a patient that they most likely had less than six months to live as they did Chris, then they have that choice to give up. The doctor didn't say they were 100 percent sure they had less than six months. So with that information you as the patient decide what to do.

Most people use the assisted suicide act as a sense of security. This gives them some relief that if the pain gets bad enough they can ease it forever. Mr. Miller is a great example because he obtained some lethal drugs when he was diagnosed with cancer in 1994. He said it gave him comfort knowing the drug was there if he needed it. He also stated that his partner suffered an agonizing death from AIDS in 1996. These factors got him involved in the issue. Just like Mr. Miller people find comfort in these things that can give them relief. Even though the relief is death, if the pain is bad enough and you are talking about a terminal disease or cancer that may not be terminal, just knowing that you won't have to suffer anymore puts their mind at ease (National Post).

Many doctors and physicians are hesitant when talking about the Death with Dignity Act. There are a lot of doctors who do not mind going through with giving someone lethal