The medical suicide of Brittany Maynard last Saturday has caused a virtual hailstorm on the Internet. Not the least of which is a head to head between two organizations. One is called Death with Dignity. The other is the American Life League, a Catholic group.
Maynard is not the first to take advantage of Oregon's law allowing self euthanasia. Doctors are not allowed to administer the drug, just prescribe it, one would hope upon a terminal diagnosis. The person has to be capable of administering the drug for themselves.
Since Oregon's law went into effect in 1997, more than 800 people have used it to terminate their lives on their own terms. Strangely, some who obtained the drug decided instead to let nature take its course but told family and friends they felt more in control and more peaceful because they had the choice.
In Maynard's case, going so public, as most of the others have not, and her young age of 29, has reignited the debate on the moral, perhaps legal issues surrounding right to death.
The American Life League's stand is that suicide is never a good solution, regardless of the situation. I would tend to agree with that in most suicide cases as I have said to people suffering from situational depression that suicide is a permanent solution to a temporary problem. In most cases although you may have lost a job or a loved one, whatever prompted thoughts of suicide, you have no idea how the future will evolve. The pain will eventually lesson. You don't know what wonderful things might be waiting in your future. And, ultimately, life is a gift.
On the other hand, what is life? Aren't we talking about quality of life? Isn't that why people sign living wills and loved ones make the painful decision to turn off life support when that person has left no directive? One of my patients was suffering from COPD and Emphysema. He carried his canister of oxygen wherever he went, which wasn't far as he could walk no further than two feet before gasping for what little breath he could get. One day he felt especially bad and checked himself into the hospital. In the afternoon he coded and the idiots revived him. For what? He spent the next two days, with his stressed out family at his side in pure misery that was only slightly alleviated with some morphine. I threw a fit and asked the nurse if we needed to have D.N.R. (Do Not Resuscitate) tattooed on our damned chests? This man had a living will on file with his lawyer, his doctor, AND at the hospital!! I had to throw another fit to get a nurse to call the doc for a change in morphine amounts. What, are you afraid he'll become addicted to it? At least keep him comfortable since you prolonged his passing.
I was appalled at the lack of common sense. Do not assume that possession of a living will is going to give you any guarantee that your wishes will be carried out. That is not always the case. I know doctors are trained to fight to save lives but at some point it should be obvious that death might actually be the healing. Some of the pro-lifers point to cases of remission and other miracles in a few cases. And they are right. But at what point does the person have the right to say, “Enough!”?
Maynard decided to go one step beyond being proactive in her death and contacted an advocacy group called 'Compassion & Choices during the summer in order to get her story out there. She hoped to spark political debate and action in her home state of California so others wouldn't have to move to a state that honors choice.
I thought Oregon was the only state that honors right to die. But other states have adopted similar laws, Washington followed Oregon's method of referendum. In New Mexico and Montana, it was made legal by court decision. Vermont is the first state to legalize right to die through legislation. Other states have attempted and failed to pass bills for aid in dying. Of course, we can expect the same people who are against abortion to come out in protest of any aid in dying bills in their state. I guess I have the same attitude toward both issues. While I am not an abortion advocate, neither am I a right to lifer. I don't make those kinds of decisions for other people.
In the case of a possible unwanted pregnancy, especially as a teen, I cautioned my children and step children that abstinence was the only sure method of preventing that. But once pregnant, your options were to raise a child you didn't want and weren't ready to raise or have the child and give them up for adoption and wonder about them the rest of your life or seek an abortion, with all of the regret and anguish that might entail. None of these are happy options, which is why I am a strong advocate of birth control and sex education. I am not the one who is going to have to deal with these choices. And I am old enough to remember the backstreet butchers before Roe vs. Wade. These were usually doctors who had lost their license to practice medicine, often because of drug and alcohol dependency and were trying to make a buck. Many women died on their tables.
If a woman or girl is intent on getting an abortion, they will get one wherever they can or abort themselves, also not a safe practice. While I am against late term abortion and the use of abortion as a birth control method, I would far rather see a safe and legal option available for those who make that decision. And perhaps that is the answer to the right to life issue. Unless and until you are walking in that other persons shoes, you have no right to judge or to make their decisions for them. And judging is a dangerous thing to do. You just might find yourself faced with the same choice one day in this life or the next in order to learn compassion.
As a hypnotist, I have learned many things from my clients, not the least of which is that we all have free will. Our Creator granted us that as a way for us to learn and grow. I cannot discount the evidence of numerous past life regressions where my subjects said that suicide was definitely frowned upon on the Other Side as it was considered as being disrespectful of the gift of a life and an opportunity to evolve spiritually. Except in cases where death was sure and likely to be prolonged or extremely painful. One example I was given was at a settlement in the early days of America. Faced with the certain rape and death for his wife and daughters, a pioneer man chose to end their lives and his own life far more humanely than was likely to happen once captured. It was pointed out that they might have chosen that manner of death for the experience or as a balancing out of actions in a past life, never-the-less, the motives were loving and therefore not viewed the same as murder.
There are those who point out that we humanely put down our dogs and cats when their dying is very painful and prolonged. But that is comparing apples and oranges. They aren't voicing that choice. We are making it for them. Also, it's highly unlikely that Fluffy or Fido has a will leaving vast fortunes to families who'd rather not wait for nature to take her course.
For myself I'm not sure I would have the courage to take my life if I was terminal. I'd be too afraid that I had chosen this manner of death for a reason and would just have to set it up again in another lifetime if I bailed too soon. I believe that we plan the major incidents in our lives before incarnating, including our manner of death and over many lifetimes choose various ways of croaking for the experience. Once you understand that we are immortal souls, that makes some sense.
I'm not asking anyone else to agree with me or share my beliefs. I'm just adding extra thoughts to the debate. I think it's also important to keep in mind the idea of death panels hidden in the Affordable Care Act as states struggle with this legislation. Termination of life should be the choice of the person dying, either like Maynard or by having signed a living will. Totalitarian societies tend to drift into allowing the government or government agencies to make that decision, even though they give lip service to the poor down trodden workers of the world in order to get their support. Just let that worker become ill or incapacitated and they will find out how much their government cares about them. Socialism is a slippery slope we need to avoid.
I'm already hearing reports, since Obamacare went into effect, of seniors being denied care under this wonderful new plan because they are no longer considered 'useful to society'. I always wonder when I hear sentiments like that if these people ever think they'll get get old or ill one day and if they will want that same lack of care extended towards them. Never forget that as the rights of the collective grow, the rights of the individual diminish. As long as the individuals choice is the motivator I can't be against the right to die. But I believe the ultimate choice should reside with the person who is dealing with the situation.
Whatever the rest of us think as we debate this issue, I wish Brittany Maynard a safe journey back home and a warm and loving welcome when she arrives. May her family's grief be lightened by the knowledge that this was her wish and she would have stayed if she could.
