Death with Dignity

Dying With Dignity

Presented to:

Professor M. Shane Heard

In Partial Fulfillment of Credit for;

English 108: College Writing and Research

Missouri Western State College

March 9, 2005

On Tuesday, March 24, an elderly Oregon woman, acting with the aid of a doctor, dosed

herself with potent chemicals and died. The woman had lived with breast cancer for

more than 20 years. By all accounts her final hours were private and peaceful, as she

became one of the first people in American history to end her life lawfully with the aid of a physician (Oregonian A1).

She was able to end her life peacefully due to controversial legislation passed in her state. The Death with Dignity Act was passed by the state of Oregon in 1994. It allows physicians to prescribe a lethal dose of medication so that a terminally ill patient can end his or her life. The requirements set forth by the state statute are as follows: “An adult who is capable, is a resident of Oregon, and has been determined by the attending physician and consulting physician to be suffering from a terminal disease, and who has voluntarily expressed his or her wish to die, may make a written request for medication for the purpose of ending his or her life in a humane and dignified manner” (Death with Dignity Act 569.32) Therefore, it is of great importance that the Death with Dignity Act remains law. It sets a president for the United States. If the act continues as enacted law then all other states can pass similar legislation that will end the suffering of terminally ill patients. All terminally ill patients should have this right. Moreover, the physician assisted suicide law stood up to its opposition.

This law took many years and withstood tremendous opposition in order to be passed. In October of 1997 The United States Supreme Court denied a hearing brought forth by opponents of the law. This allowed physician assisted suicide to go into effect. The State of Oregon has since won every opposing court case up to the federal level. Recently the former attorney general John Croft opposed the act in 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. Ashcroft issued a directive that physicians could not prescribe federally controlled substances for life terminating purposes. Ashcroft based his argument on the regulation in the federal Controlled Substances Act that says drugs must be prescribed for a ligament medical purpose (23). Moreover, Ashcroft is just protesting for the conservatives that he is employed by and has no real constitutional evidence and to why the Death with Dignity should not continue to be law. Ashcroft’s directive was overruled by District Judge Robert E. Jones. In his dissent, he stated, “It does not violate the Controlled Substances Act’s nonpreemption provision. It neither exceeds the Attorney General’s statutory authority under the Controlled Substances Act” (The Federal Register 12). Therefore, this action would be detrimental to all those who do not choose to wait for death. In November of 2004 Ashcroft appealed to the Supreme Court and they will hear the case later this year. It is likely the Supreme Court will interpret the regulations in accordance with the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals but if it fails to do so Oregon will be forced to repeal the statute.

This law has brought peace to 171 terminally ill and suffering individuals in a very painless and humane manner. Only 3 of the 43 patients experienced complications in 2003. The only complications reported in these 3 cases were vomiting. One-half of all patients became unconscious within four minutes of ingesting the lethal medication and all died within 20 minutes. The range of time from ingestion to death was five minutes to 48 hours (Sixth Annual Report T3.9).

Physician assisted suicide accomplishes much more than ending suffering before death. The right is of the individual and should be respected by our government. It is a fundamental freedom that we all should have. It allows a person to die with dignity and prevents the illness from killing them before they die. “The Death with Dignity Act is very similar to other forms of euthanasia that are legal in all states. There is little disagreement between ending life support for a person who has certainly suffered brain damage and allowing one who is suffering to do the same.”(Humphrey 569.12) Therefore, no one should oppose this law because it is constitutional