scholarly journals Death With Dignity: A Policy Analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 5 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. 63-63
Author(s):  
Zainab Suntai

Abstract Death with dignity is one of many titles attributed to the practice of providing a patient with terminal illness a means to die in light of extreme suffering as a result of a terminal illness. The purpose of the Oregon Death with Dignity Act is to provide individuals suffering from a terminal illness with the right to make a written request for life-ending medication to end their life in a “humane and dignified manner.” Deborah Stone’s policy goals of equity, efficiency, welfare, security, and liberty provides a framework to analyze whether a policy is doing what it says it wants to do. As such, the goal of this presentation is to apply the policy goals framework to determine if the Death with Dignity Act is accomplishing its stated goals. Applying a theory of the policy process, the Death with Dignity Act was analyzed using the most recently available data from the Oregon Health Authority. Results showed that since the Death with Dignity Act passed in 1997, 2,518 people have received prescriptions for life-ending medications, and of those, 1657 or 66% have used the medication to end their lives. Based on the data aggregated between 1997 and 2019, the Death with Dignity Act has mostly met its purpose of providing individuals with a terminal illness with the right to die on their own terms and with dignity. However, there are still several issues regarding equity, especially for low-income BIPOC populations. Implications for practice, policy and research are discussed.

2009 ◽  
Vol 14 (3) ◽  
pp. 161-169 ◽  
Author(s):  
John S. Westefeld ◽  
Alissa Doobay ◽  
Jennifer Hill ◽  
Clare Humphreys ◽  
Riddhi Sandil ◽  
...  

1999 ◽  
Vol 8 (4) ◽  
pp. 564-568
Author(s):  
KATE CHRISTENSEN

Oregon is the only state in the United States where a physician may legally prescribe a lethal dose of barbiturate for a patient intending suicide. The Oregon Death with Dignity Act was passed by voters in 1994 and came into effect after much legal wrangling in October of 1997. At the same time, a cabinetmaker named Pat Matheny was struggling with progressive weakness from amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, or ALS. I met with Pat and his family for a lengthy interview in October 1998 in Coos Bay, Oregon, for a television news report on his decision to get a lethal prescription. Below is an extract from that interview. On the day this introduction was written, 10 March 1999, Pat took the prescribed lethal overdose of barbiturates and died at home. His illness was taking his voice, he could not move his hands or legs, and breathing was becoming very difficult. His mother told me he knew that was “the right time” for him.


2000 ◽  
Vol 342 (8) ◽  
pp. 557-563 ◽  
Author(s):  
Linda Ganzini ◽  
Heidi D. Nelson ◽  
Terri A. Schmidt ◽  
Dale F. Kraemer ◽  
Molly A. Delorit ◽  
...  

JAMA Oncology ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 4 (5) ◽  
pp. 747 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sarah K. Sperling

2012 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
pp. 45-52 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anita Jablonski ◽  
Janine Clymin ◽  
Dana Jacobson ◽  
Karen Feldt

2011 ◽  
Vol 30 (1) ◽  
pp. 17-32 ◽  
Author(s):  
Susan M. Behuniak

Much of the American debate over physician assisted death (PAD) is framed as an ideological split between conservatives and liberals, pro life and pro choice advocates, and those who emphasize morality versus personal autonomy. Less examined, but no less relevant, is a split within the ranks of progressives—one that divides those supporting a right to die in the name of human rights from disability rights activists who invoke human rights to vehemently oppose euthanasia. This paper reviews how “dignity” serves both as a divisive wedge in this debate but also as a value that can span the divide between groups and open the way to productive discourse. Supporters of legalized euthanasia use “dignity” to express their position that some deaths might indeed be accelerated. At the same time, opponents adopt the concept to argue that physician assisted suicide stigmatizes life with a disability. To bridge this divide, the worldviews of two groups, Compassion & Choices and Not Dead Yet, are studied. The analysis concludes that the two organizations are more parallel than contrary—a finding that offers opportunities for dialogue and perhaps even advances in public policy.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document