Brittany Maynard’s death has renewed a commentary about the Death with Dignity laws in the United States. Brittany had youth, beauty, intelligence and a sense of adventure; her story broke the hearts of millions of Americans who witnessed the unforgiving, injudicious nature of brain cancer. She has replaced Terry Shiavo as the perfect figurehead for the Death with Dignity movement—she gains the support of a new, younger generation for an issue that used to be associated with an older age group.
The availability of assisted suicide to someone who is suffering from a terminal disease makes a lot of sense. Some are quick to judge the moral aptitude of the Death with Dignity laws; there are many sects of Christianity and other religions that condemn euthanasia because they believe it acts against holy sacraments—however, as a secular nation that does not have an official religion, why do we have to make our laws in adherence to religious principles? Instead, let’s leave the moral judgment and choice to partake in the Death with Dignity acts up to the sick person or the person’s family, not the government.
The question stands: Why is this only legal in five states (Oregon, Washington, Montana, Vermont and New Mexico)? Why do lawmakers tell people who already have to face the unthinkable—dying a long and painful death—how they are allowed to die? This is cruel, and under these circumstances any person should have the right to choose how he or she wishes to die, based on personal religious or moral beliefs and the suffering the person is willing to endure.
It took Brittany to “glamorize” this issue and that is a deep-rooted problem. It took a beautiful, white and wealthy young woman to warrant national interest and attention. This is especially troubling, as death and terminal illness don’t stop to discern race, socioeconomic status or physical appearance—but the press, and by extension, the lawmakers responsible for creating laws surrounding the right to die do.
Until 1997 the “right to die” did not exist in the U.S. at all—lawmakers are not concerned with getting the votes of terminally ill patients or elderly people since the likelihood they will vote is slim anyway. Instead, lawmakers are more concerned about losing the vote of the able-bodied people who oppose the laws.
Having watched grandparents and family members suffer long and agonizing deaths from terminal illnesses, I often wonder what they wanted. And as morbid as it is, what choice I will want to make if I am ever in the same situation. For sure I don’t want lawmakers to control how I can die, or anyone who is not in a terminally ill situation as Brittany was should make that decision.
Death with Dignity is something that should be nationalized, and it is sad that it took Brittany to get national attention because there have been so many equally tragic stories that preceded hers. If there is any way that a sense of comfort and control can be gained by a terminally ill patient, who are the lawmakers to take that away? Suicide is never a happy solution—no matter what the circumstances. The issues with the renewed commentary about Death with Dignity laws prove that this issue far exceeds concerns about the morality of suicide. Instead it shows us the fickle politicians in our nation who are motivated by ageism, racism, classism and more votes in the next election.
I hope that in the upcoming months we see decisions made about these laws that are actually based on the needs of terminally ill patients, not non-contingent politics.
