Death with “dignity”: The wedge that divides the disability rights movement from the right to die movement

2011 ◽  
Vol 30 (1) ◽  
pp. 17-32 ◽  
Author(s):  
Susan M. Behuniak
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Assisted Suicide ◽  
Personal Autonomy ◽  
Right To Die ◽  
Disability Rights ◽  
Physician Assisted Suicide ◽  
Death With Dignity ◽  
Assisted Death ◽  
A Value ◽  
The Right

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.

Death with “dignity”: The wedge that divides the disability rights movement from the right to die movement

2011 ◽  
Vol 30 (01) ◽  
pp. 17-32
Author(s):  
Susan M. Behuniak
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Assisted Suicide ◽  
Personal Autonomy ◽  
Right To Die ◽  
Disability Rights ◽  
Physician Assisted Suicide ◽  
Death With Dignity ◽  
Assisted Death ◽  
A Value ◽  
The Right

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.

When choosing death is an affirmation of life: A public remembrance of our family’s journey

2017 ◽  
Vol 114 (3) ◽  
pp. 414-423
Author(s):  
H. James Hopkins ◽  
Karen D. Hopkins
Keyword(s):  
Pancreatic Cancer ◽  
End Of Life ◽  
Assisted Suicide ◽  
Major Surgery ◽  
Right To Die ◽  
Physician Assisted Suicide ◽  
Death With Dignity ◽  
The Road ◽  
The Family ◽  
The Right

This article is a theological reflection written four months after the death, at age 80, of Nedra Faye Hathaway, mother to co-author Karen and mother-in-law to co-author Jim. Nedra chose to end her life on October 24, 2016, over a year after being diagnosed with pancreatic cancer, almost eleven months after major surgery to remove her pancreas and four months after learning the cancer was still present even after eighteen chemotherapy treatments. For many years Nedra, an Oregonian, had been a proponent of the right to die with dignity. She had supported Oregon’s approval of “Death with Dignity” law. Different states refer to this as physician-assisted suicide, right to die, or euthanasia. After moving to California to reside with her daughter and son-in-law, Nedra was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer, a diagnosis that eventually led to the conclusion that she had only months to live. After choosing to participate in California’s newly approved End of Life Option Act, Nedra agreed to contribute as part of an educational panel to support the Act. She wowed the participants of the Program. She expressed her strong belief in her right to make end-of-life decisions, appreciation for programs such as the one in which she was participating, her desire to see more states adopt Death with Dignity legislation, and her personal gratitude to each of the professionals who volunteer to support patients who make choices like hers. She also said, “I recognize there is a difference in supporting me in this process and agreeing with me at every turn in the road.” Following her participation on this panel nothing more was said to her by family members, initially uncomfortable with her decision, about taking her end-of-life medication. In the end, on a legal level, the family found that, with Nedra, they supported the adoption of “right-to-die” legislation by additional states. While they do not think that the choice she made will be the best choice for every person and every family, they acknowledge that simply having the right to choose the time and place of her death brought Nedra comfort; simultaneously, the family found themselves hoping they would have the same right regardless of which state they lived in.

Rights of the Terminally Ill Act of the Australian Northern Territory

1996 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 157-166 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert L. Schwartz
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Assisted Suicide ◽  
Terminally Ill ◽  
Federal Court ◽  
The United States ◽  
Intractable Pain ◽  
Physician Assisted Suicide ◽  
Death With Dignity ◽  
Assisted Death ◽  
Court Of Appeals

Over the past year the debate over physician-assisted death has been waged in several courts and legislatures, and before at least one electorate as well. Measure 16, the Oregon Death With Dignity initiative that would permit physician-assisted suicide in some circumstances, was approved by the electorate; but it remains on hold while a permanent injunction issued against it by a Federal judge is reviewed by the United States Court of Appeals. Another Federal court judge's decision that the Washington statute criminalizing physician-assisted suicide was unconstitutional when applied to the case of a competent terminally ill patient in intractable pain, was reversed by a three judge panel of that same United States Court of Appeals.

scholarly journals Are the Distinctions Drawn in the Debate about End-of-Life Decision Making “Principled”? If Not, How Much Does it Matter?

2012 ◽  
Vol 40 (1) ◽  
pp. 66-84 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yale Kamisar
Keyword(s):  
End Of Life ◽  
Assisted Suicide ◽  
Good Death ◽  
Physician Assisted Suicide ◽  
Death With Dignity ◽  
Assisted Death ◽  
Dying Patients ◽  
Aid In Dying ◽  
End Of Life Decision ◽  
Life Decision

I sometimes wonder whether some proponents of physician-assisted suicide (PAS) or physician-assisted death (PAD) think they own the copyright to such catchy phrases as “death with dignity” and “a good death” so that if you are against PAS or PAD, then you must be against a dignified death or a good death. If one removes the quotation marks around phrases like “aid-in-dying” or “compassionate care for the dying,” I am not opposed to such end-of-life care either. Indeed, how could anybody be against this type of care?I do not want to abandon dying patients anymore than Dr. Timothy Quill does. Although, unfortunately, it will not always be easy to achieve the desired result, I agree with him that it ought to be a goal of medicine “to help people die well, to help them receive a good death” — or at least “the best possible” death under the circumstances. I part company with Professor Quill, however, when he urges us to change the law in the majority of our states so that in some circumstances patients may achieve a “good death” or a “dignified” one by means of lethal drugs.

scholarly journals To live is to die: A virtue account of arguments for the right to die

2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (1-2) ◽  
pp. 20-29
Author(s):  
Franlu Vulliermet
Keyword(s):  
Virtue Ethics ◽  
Assisted Suicide ◽  
Right To Die ◽  
Physician Assisted Suicide ◽  
The Right

AbstractIn recent years, debates about euthanasia and assisted suicide have increased to the point that now, many people defend the recognition of the right to die, the right for people to decide upon the end of their life. Consistently, advocates fight to legalise practices such as euthanasia to guarantee patients’ possibility to die when they request it. In this paper, I review two of the strongest arguments invoked by proponents of physician-assisted suicide: the argument for compassion and the argument for dignity. The focus of this paper is to propose a review of these arguments through the lens of virtue ethics to inform the debate on physician-assisted suicide and question the relevance of such arguments for the legalisation of that right that would greatly ease the possibilities to end the life of a patient asking for it.

Right to Try and Physician Assisted Suicide: Similar or Different?

2021 ◽  
Vol 66 (Special Issue) ◽  
pp. 122-122
Author(s):  
Andrea Martani ◽  
◽  
◽  
Keyword(s):  
Assisted Suicide ◽  
Terminally Ill ◽  
The United States ◽  
Right To Die ◽  
Physician Assisted Suicide ◽  
Terminally Ill Patients ◽  
Conflicting Interests ◽  
Life Circumstances ◽  
Experimental Treatments ◽  
The Right

"In the last few years, the debate whether terminally ill patients should have access to experimental treatments without governmental supervision has intensified. The so-called “Right-to-Try” (RTT) doctrine has become popular especially in the United States, where the federal parliament passed a bill allowing such practices. As many other policies concerning patients’ autonomy in end-of-life circumstances, the appropriateness of RTT has often been challenged. In this context, some authors recently put forward the argument that states where it is allowed to request physician assisted suicide (PAS) should also necessarily recognize a RTT. In the authors’ own words: “if states can give a terminally ill patient the right to die using medications with 100% probability of being unsafe and ineffective against his/her disease [i.e. the substances used for PAS], they should also be able to grant terminally ill patients a right to try medications with less than 100% probability of being unsafe and ineffective [i.e. ET]”. In this contribution, I will question this argument by underlying three flaws in the authors’ comparison of RTT and PAS. First, there is a fundamental distinction in the nature of the choices between the two situations concerning the (un)certainty of their outcomes. Second, the number of actors (and their potential conflicting interests) involved in these two situations is different. Third, the authors’ understanding of the object of patients’ rights in PAS is partially incorrect. I will conclude by arguing that, although reasons might exist to support RTT, such comparison with PAS is not one of them. "

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document