I just watched the HBO documentary, "How To Die In Oregon." It is a film about the debate, over whether or not people in the United States should have the right to "die with dignity," through physician assisted deaths. The documentary crew follows the lives, and deaths of several individuals, and their families. It presents clear arguments for why the right should be given to every citizen, and gives a very intimate view into the lives, and decision making process of the people involved, and what the process is like, in the state of Oregon. It also discusses opposing views, and the struggle involved, in getting legislation, like that in Oregon, passed in Washington.
One of the people the documentary follows, is a woman named Nancy. Nancy's husband had passed away, from cancer in his brain and spinal cord. At the time he was diagnosed with the illness (around 2006 I think), they were both Washington state residents. There was not much that doctors could do for him, in terms of treatment, and his prognosis was very grave. The disease progressed rapidly, and he lost his ability to care for himself. He suffered horribly, both physically and mentally, due to his degenerative condition, and his loss of freedom, and independence. He hated needing to be cared or, and wanted a peaceful, dignified death. At the time however, physician assisted suicide was illegal in his home state. He inquired about moving to Oregon, because he knew it was legal there, but his doctors told him he wouldn't be alive long enough to be able to establish residency there, or be able to give himself the lethal dose of medicine. He resigned himself to staying in his state. His wife Nancy described his final days being filled with pain, and suffering. One of his dying wishes, to her, was to work towards making physician assisted death legal in Washington, so that others wouldn't have to suffer the same way.
Nancy worked tirelessly, volunteering to speak, giving interviews, and making phone calls, to share her husband's story with the public, and to help raise awareness, and support, for the "Death With Dignity Act," which eventually passed, and was instituted in Washington, in 2008. During one of the many speaking engagements the documentary chronicles, the interviewer asked Nancy something to the effect of, "Death with dignity, the other side would call it assisted suicide. Is it assisted suicide?" She replied, "No. It's offense to me, to call it a suicide. Suicide is something someone does, who is otherwise physically healthy, and has their life ahead of them, but is clinically depressed and does not want to live." In another segment, she explains to a crowd of people, that although she and her husband were both raised Catholic, he (and obviously she agrees) didn't think it was right for the government, or any religious leader, to dictate how much someone should have to suffer. I agree with her opinions, whole heartedly.
The documentary discusses the Hippocratic oath, that doctors take, to "do no harm," and presents arguments from both sides. The film is clearly "pro" euthanasia rights, however it does offer examples, and give and take dialogue, from both sides of the issue. Some of the opponents to physician assisted death, claim that enacting such laws, is essentially giving the government the power to classify who is "fit" to live, versus those whose care might seem otherwise burdensome, or costly. I think this line of thinking is completely misguided. No one is saying "everyone with such, and such diagnosis, should be euthanized."
Giving citizens a dignified alternative, to assured suffering, has nothing to do with placing judgement on individuals. Everyone should have the right to determine what he/she considers to be a worthwhile life. Not everyone with a terminal diagnosis would choose to cut their life short. Not everyone that is disabled finds being dependent on others as painful, humiliating, or degrading. Everyone has their own unique threshold for suffering, and what he/she might classify as a life worth living. The point is, those people who do have a terminal illness, or incurable chronic illness, should have the right to determine when they've suffered enough. We as society, as loving, compassionate citizens, should recognize that in some cases, there are no medical answers or relief to suffering, but death itself. We should not demonize people for not wanting to suffer, or doctors for wanting to help ease someone's suffering.
If doctors have no methods to ease someone's physical illness, and that person is guaranteed to have a future filled with crippling limitations, lack of independence and/or physical suffering, than in my opinion, it is DOING HARM, not to offer a peaceful alternative. It is not right to say, you must suffer, because we can't help you. If death is a certainty, why prolong the suffering, and poor quality of life?
The documentary shows a man named Randy, dying from prostate cancer. In the film, he talks about his outrage over receiving a denial letter for more chemotherapy. Randy had already had several doses, but the treatments had been ineffective. He was too poor to pay for the treatments out of pocket, and the state of Oregon was refusing to pay for more treatments, because based on his diagnosis they felt that further treatments would only be futile (aka a waste of tax payer money), and were only offering him palliative, or "comfort care." He showed the rejection letter, which outlined the comfort care measures, that he COULD qualify for, given his condition. In the list, was the option of physician assisted death. He was completely irate, accusing Oregon of "putting a price on his life", and felt as though he was being pressured into dying. After going public with his story, the state agreed to pay for more radiation treatments. Despite treatment, he died a month later.
Giving people options, is totally different than imposing something on people. I don't think Oregon was wrong for denying Randy treatment. Some cases are lost causes. I receive all my medical benefits through the government, (Medicare and Medicaid) and believe whole heartedly that the government has the right to approve, or deny treatment, if they have clear evidence that it is unnecessary. As it is, there is a ton of price gauging, abuse of the system, and wasted money.
A perfect example, in my life, is receiving physical therapy. Due to my injury (C4/C5 complete), I was left completely paralyzed, with no hope of recovering any sensation, or functional ability, below my injury level. Directly after my accident, I received three months of inpatient acute, physical and occupational rehabilitation, and then six months of outpatient subacute rehab. For the first year and a half, after my accident I lived in and out of the hospital, and nursing facilities. During my stay in the nursing home, I received PT/OT five days a week (about a half hour of range of motion stretches, and exercises, done with the assistance of a physical therapist). Once I moved out, into my own apartment, the state paid to have a PT/OT therapist come to my home and teach my aides how to do range of motion exercises. I have been living here for over four years, and have only had PT/OT come to my home twice. The government will not approve me for outpatient PT/OT, because they feel, based on my diagnosis, anyone can be trained to do simple range of motion exercise with me. My prognosis, does not include "getting better," or regaining mobility, therefore they are justified in not wanting to pay for services that would be a waste of time and money. It doesn't make me angry. It makes sense.
I WISH I had a peaceful alternative to end this life. I don't think Oregon officials were wrong for denying the man in the film treatment. Clearly, he was terminally ill. Offering him the OPTION of a physician assisted death, was just that; an option. He had every right, not to exercise his right to die. In his opinion, his life was worth fighting for. That's all well and good, but there are cases where treatment is futile. If the tax payers are footing the bill, the government has the right to say whether or not they are going to pay. If you can afford it, and feel extra treatments are worth the cost,and risk, than more power to you. No one should tell you how you spend your own money (taxes & benefits aside). Just as, no one should force suffering upon others.
I HATE the life that my paralysis has forced onto me. I do not think it's right, or humane, to force me to live this way. If I lived in Oregon, or Washington, I would most certainly exercise the right to die with dignity. I'm not sure if I'd qualify, because I can't technically administer the medicine to myself. I'm a little fuzzy on the law, even after watching the film. They clearly point out that such legislation is feasible, because the patient is giving themselves the medicine, versus a doctor giving a lethal injection. However, everyone in the film, clearly had other people prepare the mixture, and help them. All they had to do was physically be able to ingest the concoction, by mouth. I could do that, but am unsure if my situation would be approved.
Most of society, and my loved ones don't like to admit the fact that paralysis (at high, complete levels- such as mine) is no different than a terminal illness. I have absolutely no means of self sufficiency. I am FORCED into accepting help for EVERY aspect of normal, daily life: to eat, go to the bathroom, dress, bathe, etc. I have two options: accept help and prolong my life, and therefore my own suffering, or reject help, and suffer a long drawn out, painful death. That is an incredibly harsh, cruel position to be in.
I'm not saying everyone with a spinal cord injury, or paralysis should want to die, or that they should be euthanized. All I'm saying is that each case should be judged based on the individual, and his/her own definition of what is a quality life. There should be an alternative, peaceful way to end someone's suffering. The choice, and decision to exercise that option, should be left to the individual. Not everyone will choose to die.
I for one, would welcome a peaceful option. For me, being completely paralyzed has been hell on earth. I absolutely detest needing help, and having no privacy. My physiology, (having IBS) has complicated my situation, and creates a lot of pain, and discomfort. I'm forced into taking dozens of pills, and into enduring horrible treatments (like bowel program-where a nurse needs to manually stimulate my body into evacuating stool), that create as much discomfort as they alleviate, if not more. There is no cure in sight for me, and very little that doctors can do to get rid of the autonomic dysreflexia, I deal with on a daily basis. My tolerance for sitting is poor, and I'm left practically bed bound. I am literally a prisoner within my own body. Right now, my only means of ending my suffering, is to reject the help that is given to me every day. Rejecting help will ensure my death 100%, because I can not feed myself, or get something to drink, without assistance. I can not go to the bathroom, or clean myself. Without help, my death will be assured, in only a matter of time.
In other words, my only option of ending my suffering (which in and of itself is a certainty, given my body, and my condition) is to slowly starve myself to death, or hope to die from untreated infection. Both "options" will result in my death, but will most likely be very painful, and drawn out, and incredibly hard for my loved ones to witness. For me, the best "help" for me, would be a dignified death. I hate that I am so trapped, and so limited by the law. It pisses me off, that religious "morals" and belief systems are imposed on me, and force me to suffer. My life has come to a point, where living equates to suffering. The scale has tipped, irreversibly, to being a life of overwhelming suffering, versus overall good. I truly wish I had the right to die peacefully, and quickly. I'd take that option in a heartbeat.
The documentary also follows a woman, named Cody, who was dying from cancer in her liver. Throughout the film, it shows her with her family, and each of their perspective's about her choice to exercise her right to die. For a little while, she had a period of feeling good, and had outlived her prognosis. She knew that she had the pills, waiting for her, but she chose life. She explained that she knew she didn't HAVE to ever take the pills, if she didn't want to, but that she drew peace and comfort from knowing, that she could spare herself from eventual suffering. She knew she was going to die, either way, but she didn't want to let her illness bring her to the point where she could no longer care for herself.
Naturally, Cody's family was sad, that she was going to die, but they were also very understanding, and supportive of her decision to hasten her own death. She involved them in her thought process, and clearly outlined what SHE considered to be a quality life, and how far she was WILLING to continue to suffer. Thanks to her having the option to die with dignity, she and her loved ones were able to prepare for death, together. They were able to enjoy her last days together, and say their goodbyes to one another, while she was still relatively able to care for herself, and was able to die with pride, and grace. She was able to spare herself the suffering, of added pain and the humiliation, of needing to be cared for (I can relate to her feelings), and spare her family the cost, and the physical & emotional burdens of having to watch her suffer and have to care for her.
Some people can tolerate more pain than others. Some people don't mind being dependent. Some people aren't bothered by vanities, modesty, or pride. Everyone is different. Every case is unique. For those people, whose death is inevitable, without medical intervention, or for those of people living with incurable, painful conditions, there should be a humane alternative, to forced suffering. Giving people the right to die, is not the same as killing people. The choice should remain with the individual that is faced with the suffering. Suffering shouldn't be imposed, or expected, just because there isn't a cure, or viable treatment. We treat our pets more humanely, than we treat our fellow man. I agree with the right to die with dignity, and wish more people would open their eyes, hearts and minds. I wish more states would free their citizens from the oppression of religious beliefs, over law, and give citizens the right to decide how much/little suffering they are willing to endure, and give doctors the right to uphold their oaths, to help ease suffering; even when life itself is suffering.
- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad