A Controversial Issue The Death with Dignity Act - Essay Example

Introduction The Death with Dignity Act is indeed a very topical aspect not only in the medical fraternity but in all facets of contemporary life. It is an issue that continues to elicit a lot of debate and controversy with several opinions emerging on both sides of the debate. In any case, it requires very critical analysis before any substantive stance can be adopted. One of the fundamental issues in the Act arises out of the very fact that it concerns human life which is deemed by many to be a sacred affair. In any case, the issues emerging out of this controversy are mostly in support or in antipathy on the application of the whole Act. Controversy It has to be realized that even in areas where The Death with Dignity Act is sanctioned, its application still faces myriad challenges arising from the opponents of the whole agenda. The Act proposes that people who are mentally fit but terminally ill should be given the option of using drugs that can hasten their deaths. This should happen in cases where death appears imminent or when the patient experiences a lot of suffering courtesy of the illness. Doctors and activists are on either side of the debate on whether the Act should be applied. Religious organizations are forging their stance on this topical issue on the strong premise that life is sacred and should never be taken for granted to the extent of hastening one’s death (Or: Public Health Division, 55). While the Act grants the patients the right to be given the drugs to quicken their deaths, its enforcement still faces challenges as most doctors are not very comfortable with prescribing such drugs to the patients who need them. In this regard, it becomes very difficult for the patients to get such services. In the same way, most doctors are prohibited by their employers to prescribe such drugs and will therefore never offer services in this respect. While the law was successfully passed in Oregon in 1994, its application still lingers given the many challenges and controversy surrounding the whole issue. In the State of Washington, the law went into effect successfully in 2009 after it was passed in 2008 without any legal challenges being raised (Hillyard, 28). The major issue presently is however the need to provide education to the masses on the whole subject of the Act in order to limit much of the ongoing debate and to enable the people to fully understand how the Act operates. In this respect it would become possible to reject the law or to adopt it without much of the present controversy. As a major argument in support of this Act, it is realized that several patients normally undergo a lot of both physical and mental pain and suffering when diagnosed with terminal illnesses. In order to remedy and mitigate some of these cases, it was therefore deemed appropriate in some states that the Death with Dignity Act would thereby provide the best alternative. Basically, it is a matter of individual choice and its application is based upon the fact that the patient has to be 18 years and older and be mentally sound in the process (Public Health Division, 56). Without doubt, it seems that the Act offers patients the option of ending their lives with some level of dignity since they can actually decide when and where to actually die. Most opponents of this law have simply regarded it as a form of “assisted suicide” where a patient is lawfully given the option of taking away their life. Religious organizations especially Catholics have been very loud in opposing the law on the belief that life is very sacred and should only be taken away by God. They vehemently oppose any form of the law that might give a patient the option of deciding when to die. As such, doctors operating under such organizations are prohibited from practicing the law or referring patients to other doctors who might assist them. Most of these organizations also claim that the law might be severely abused as most people would be pressured to simply end their lives pt such a without the need for doing so. For instance, it is claimed that most elderly people would adopt such a strategy in order to avoid much of the suffering often realized by such people. It is also realized that most elderly people might also chose to end their lives in order to avoid being a burden or a nuisance to their loved ones. In the state of Washington, it has been realized that several patients have always adopted the Death with Dignity Act in order to end their lives quickly. Data from the Department of Health indicates that most of the people who take the drugs in Washington are normally over 48 years old and are usually those under hospice care or cancer patients (Bushong, 36). These patients usually give varied reasons for taking the prescription. Most of them claim that the loss of dignity is their major drive since they become unable to perform simple tasks that make life dignified. Some of the patients also cite other reasons ranging from the need to control their dying process to autonomy in life. However, it has also been realized that most of the people who receive the prescription from the doctors never take them at the end. Generally, it is not easy to find the doctors who can prescribe the drugs to be used in the process. Some of these doctors say that several doctors actually support the whole process but few of them are normally willing to offer the prescriptions. However, there are organizations which offer help to the patients who seek such services. These organizations usually keep a list of the doctors who offer the services and will usually refer the patients to them. In almost all the states where the law is applied, its opponents claim that the Death with Dignity Act lacks very necessary provisions that can make it justified. For instance, it is claimed that in Oregon and Washington, the law lacks such necessary provisions as a provision for counseling the patients and a family notification. In addition the practicing states to not strictly enforce the residency provision and this usually encourage people from other states to migrate to these states in order to get the prescriptions from the doctors. Controversy about the whole subject basically began in Oregon where the Act was first proposed and passed. Several court cases arose out of the whole enactment process most of which were however decided in favor of the State. Therefore amid the challenges and controversy that faced the whole process, the law was eventually passed and continues to be debated today. In the case of Washington v. Gluckersberg, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that assisted suicide was not actually an individual’s constitutional right. However, in the ruling, the court further granted the states the liberty to legalize or prohibit the practice. The ruling was therefore a milestone in the passage of the Death with Dignity Act as the states now had the option of deciding whether to adopt the law or not. While the law was successfully voted by the majority in the state of Oregon, most of its opponents now claim that most of the voters might have actually changed their minds over time and that it would therefore be necessary to offer the voters another opportunity in order to get their stance on the whole controversial subject (Public Health Division, 125). In whichever case, it must be remembered that the fundamental idea behind the passage of the Death with Dignity Act was basically to offer terminally ill patients the opportunity of ending their lives in a dignified manner at their own options. In this regard, the debate around the whole subject basically stems from the very fact that several opinions exist on the sanctity of life and whether an individual should have control over their own lives. In this respect, it becomes necessary to realize that the application of the law is certainly justified in instances where it is meant to mitigate human suffering and limit an individual’s mental torture. In this regard, the fundamental concern is basically the need to offer the patients as much information and counseling on the subject as possible in order to avoid making decisions that are basically driven by short-term situations or depression. The objective of the law enforcers should therefore be the need to ensure that the law is strictly practiced as passed and any loopholes are addressed. Conclusion In conclusion, the controversy around the whole subject is therefore a healthy way of expressing varied opinions about this topical subject. However, it is necessary that the opponents of the whole practice to provide alternative options that can assist the patients who normally resort to the application of this law. The state governments should ensure that people do not simply migrate to these states in order to take advantage of the law. In the same way, it is necessary that all the patients are thoroughly counseled so that they can make proper decisions regarding their lives. Works Cited Bushong, Stephen K. Oregon's Death With Dignity Act. Lake Oswego, Or.: Oregon State Bar, Continuing Legal Education, 2004. Print. Death with Dignity Act history. Salem, Or.: Public Health Division, 2007. Print. Death with Dignity Act requirements. Salem, Or: Public Health Division, 2007. Print. FAQs about the Death With Dignity Act. Portland, Or.: Oregon Public Health Division, 2010. Print. Hillyard, Daniel. Dying right: the death with dignity movement. New York: Routledge, 2001. Print. Summary of Oregon's Death with Dignity Act - 2006. Salem, Or: Public Health Division, 2007. Print. Read More