A recent article in the Washington Post produced by Kaiser Health News and written by Melissa Bailey asserts that openly discussing a self-controlled death, no matter how rational the discussion, is viewed by some people as “subversive” or, at least, out of the ordinary or suspect.
Lamar Hankins discusses how the disabled are devalued and prevented from having the same rights non-disabled people have. What a person considers a fulfilling life should be decided by each person, not by the opinion of any other person, including by someone who is disabled.
Lamar Hankins shares his notes taken from a lecture by Professor Thaddeus Pope, who spoke on the topic “Avoiding Advanced Dementia with a VSED Directive” for the Hemlock Society of San Diego.
A Washington state man, Aaron McQ, described his illness (a rare form of ALS) as “terrifying . . . like waking up every morning in quicksand.” He agreed to discuss his experience with Kaiser News to help provide more understanding about how users feel after qualifying for PAD. Over 3,000 terminally ill residents in the US have used PAD laws since Oregon’s first took effect twenty years ago. This is one man’s experience.
The Society for Humanistic Judaism (SHJ) supports the right of all people to decide when their lives should end. This post looks at the SHJ’s position on physician-assisted death.
The American Association of Suicidology recognizes that the practice of physician aid in dying, also called physician assisted suicide, Death with Dignity, and medical aid in dying, is distinct from the behavior that has been traditionally and ordinarily described as “suicide,” the tragic event our organization works so hard to prevent. Although there may be overlap between the two categories, legal physician assisted deaths should not be considered to be cases of suicide and are therefore a matter outside the central focus of the AAS.
It is not unusual for married couples to die within a few days, weeks, or months of one another. It has become more common in recent years for couples, especially those who have been together for many years and are in poor health, to plan their deaths together by taking barbiturates or some other drug that is deadly when taken in sufficient quantity. Recently, through Canada’s assisted-dying law, a Canadian couple, married for almost 73 years, arranged their joint deaths in the same bed, while holding hands.
Thaddeus Pope writes about the American Academy of Neurology (AAN) dropping its longtime opposition to legislation giving terminally ill patients the option of medical aid in dying (MAID). In addition, he identifies numerous local, state, regional, and national medical-related groups that have now taken a neutral position on MAID or endorsed its use.
In 2017, the District of Columbia (DC) became the seventh jurisdiction in the United States to legalize medical aid in dying, which gives terminally ill patients the option of how and when they die. The new DC statute is nearly identical to earlier enacted medical aid in dying statutes in California, Colorado, Oregon, Vermont, and Washington State. Only Montana legalized medical aid in dying through a court decision, but subsequently, proponents of the act have failed in every attempt to legalize medical aid in dying through constitutional or statutory litigation.
Whenever I read the arguments of opponents of Medical Aid In Dying (MAID), one that constantly crops up is a religious appeal to how precious life is. For example, “Every day is a gift from God, and you can’t ever let that go.” That is a faith statement. I may agree with it or I may not. It may rise out of the writer’s religious faith, but that doesn’t mean it applies to mine. And religious faith should never be a basis for making public policy. Otherwise, we will have one person’s religion controlling all others – something our founders absolutely opposed.
