DESCRIBE HOW TO DIE IN OREGON

I JUST NEED A RESPONSE TO THE PARAGRAPH I POSTED IN HERE. IT IS A DISCUSSION POST. I. WANT AN AGAINST RESPONSE TO IT. IT’S A DEBATE POST.

The video How to Die in Oregon explores the stories of different patients and their journeys with Physician-Assisted Death (AID). The topic of AID is very controversial due to a plethora of moral, ethical, and legal issues. One of the primary moral, ethical, and legal issues is that of a physician helping or aiding a patient to end their life early, typically due to a terminal illness. One of the primary responsibilities that the medical team has for their patients is to ensure that as their patient is dying is to provide as much “relief from distressing symptoms of disease, the security of a caring environment, sustained expert care, and assurance that they and their families will not be abandoned” (Corr et al., 2019).
Sue Dessayer Porter is a volunteer and advocate with End Of Life Choices Oregon that works with patients seeking AID. Before the patient takes the medication that will assist them in dying, she asks them some questions to ensure that the action that they are about to take is understood and truly desired. The first thing she discusses with the patient is that they have the right to change their mind at any time and, in choosing to use AID, the patient is in full control and it is their choice. Another thing that Sue discusses with the patient is to explain what the medication does and how the process works to aid in their passing. An excellent example of these discussions occurs in the beginning of the film when Sue has this discussion with a patient named Roger. When walking Roger through the process of what’s going to happen after he takes the medications, how he feels about it, and if he understands it, Roger responds with an affirmative and that “it will kill me and make me happy” (How to Die in Oregon, 2011).
To understand the position that patients choosing to use AID are in, simply imagine being diagnosed with a terminal illness and being told that the process of dying from that illness will be prolonged and excruciatingly painful. You are told that you will have severe chronic pain, difficulty sleeping, incur tremendous financial costs associated with your care, which will fall on your family to cover if your estate can’t, and that your family will have to watch you suffer until death finally claims you; again, it’s not a matter of if you will die, but when and with how much dignity left to you. AID helps patients avoid all that unnecessary pain and suffering for not only the patient, but their families as well. Most legislatures, lawyers, and physicians are able to agree that it is reasonable that patients “diagnosed with a progressive disease that is irreversible by treatment and is ‘reasonably expected to die within six months’” be set as the threshold for legalized AID (Frost et al., 2014). In the video you can see that the patients are more at ease in facing their mortality because they have the option to take the AID medications whenever they want so they can live their last few days without worrying when they will die. Moreover, the film follows another patient named Cody who discusses her journey of dealing with a cancerous mass found in her liver which caused her to be unable to eat or function independently. In the course of her treatment, Cody undergoes surgery to remove the cancer, but it ends up failing when it resurfaces. Cody’s doctor tells her that there are no further options for treatment and that she has approximately six months to live; she decides to spend her last days alive with her family before choosing to take the AID medication (How to Die in Oregon, 2011).
Physician-Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia in the Intensive Care Unit: A Dialogue on Core Ethical Issues discusses when physician-assisted death and euthanasia is morally acceptable: “We accept that we should not prolong life at all costs, particularly if those costs include intolerable pain and suffering according to the patient” (Goligher et al., 2017). A commonly raised question about AID and euthanasia, and the ethical/moral issues with it, is why is it that we can act more humanely for our animal family but not for our human family? There seems to be no moral or ethical qualms with easing the passing of animals so why then is there with humans, especially when they can provide their consent or convey their desire for AID or euthanasia? No ethically or morally compelling arguments have been provided by society.
Another reason why physician-assisted death is beneficial is because patients have the option to donate their organs, which may not be an option if some diseases progress and destroy harvestable organs. According to Jan Bollen, “organ donation after [AID and] euthanasia involves patients whose request to undergo [AID and] euthanasia has been granted and who voluntarily want to donate their organs after death” (Jan Bollen, 2017). People that choose to partake in physician-assisted death/euthanasia have the ability to choose to donate their organs if they consent to do so in order to help another individual in need. Dan Drew describes his experience with donating his kidney to Olivia DiMauro in the video The Truth About Organ Donation. Olivia suffered from polycystic kidney disease, which would eventually cause her kidney to degrade and fail. Dan explains that “the idea that you could contribute a piece of yourself to someone else so that they could be there for their kids at their wedding” is powerful and helps provide meaning for his inescapable death. “Organ donation is only possible when: (1) the organ in question is not uniquely vital to the donor’s health or (2) the donor is already dead when the organ is retrieved from his or her body” (Corr et al., 2019). In this way, the terminally ill who choose AID are not only able to choose for themselves when and how they die with dignity, but can also provide life saving organs to others – that otherwise might not be available as a result of illness – providing additional meaning to their passing.
Not only are the moral and ethical reasons for AID sound and more than reasonable, but when the human elements of compassion, empathy, and respect are also considered then there really isn’t a valid reason to make AID illegal.

Last Completed Projects