TAW122
Emissary of the right to die.
- Aug 30, 2018
- 7,388
I wished I had a better title for this thread, but the general idea is that while over the last few years (recently) there has been more states that have legalized death with dignity laws. That itself is indeed a step in the right direction. As of now there are 13 states as well as one jurisdiction (District of Columbia, Washington D.C.) that have legalized death with dignity laws. These states are (Washington, Oregon, California, New Mexico, Montana, Hawaii, Delaware, Illinois, New York, Vermont, Maine, New Jersey, Colorado). Additionally, two states have expanded eligibility by dropping the residency requirement for accessing such services, which are Oregon and Vermont respectively.
While these are great steps in the right direction, these policies and programs ONLY apply to those who are terminally ill, with six months or less of life, requiring signing off by various medical professionals, and also for the patient to be ill enough yet have enough capacity to self-administer the drug and sound of mind, among other criteria. Therefore, it is only applicable towards those who are already dying or will die relatively soon. Don't mistake that for lack of support of current policy however… It is great that the people who are terminally ill are benefiting from such legislation and will be able to hasten their death to avoid unnecessary suffering, but the people who need it the most, mainly those with chronic conditions, yet non-terminal, are being denied and thus they either end up letting nature take it's course, having to travel elsewhere where the eligibility criteria is more lax and accessible, or even attempting to DIY on their own (which has it's own risks as well).
One such example is a person named Eddie (linked from the Reddit thread as well as the video from 2024) who once lived a vibrant, active life, had many things going for him and is on the way to becoming an ED nurse, and otherwise would have had a fulfilling life. All of that was taken away because of a biking accident where he broke his neck and later became a quadriplegic. Since California's death with dignity law only allowed those who were terminally ill with six months or less to live, he would not have qualified for such services. After spending nearly a decade in that condition, he decided it was too much to continue sentience and fortunately his roommates who were also his caretakers respected his decision. He then flew to Switzerland, which allowed foreigners seeking assisted suicide and death with dignity (Dignitas most likely) to access it. He then ended his suffering in Switzerland, surrounded by loved ones and avoided potentially a worse death (through natural causes or other causes) as well as additional, prolonged suffering. Of course, if California law had expanded eligibility to those who have chronic, permanent conditions (in his case, quadriplegia) then he would have likely chosen to die in his current state of residence, California instead of traveling overseas to Switzerland to get the service.
In conclusion, I believe that with more states legalizing death with dignity, is a good step in the right direction and certainly progression towards the right to die, there still remains an important change that has yet to come. This would be the expansion of existing eligibility criteria for death with dignity, not just for the terminally ill with six months or less to live, but for those with ongoing, chronic (and likely permanent ailments, both mental and physical) conditions with little prospects of improvement. It would be unethical and immoral to hold these people (with non-terminal illnesses) to sentience in an gamble that things will somehow improve in the future, be it months, years, or decades further. That would be the next logical step in really helping those who are currently suffering, which is expansion of eligibility criteria, and with reasonable safeguards such as waiting periods, screenings, and what not.
While these are great steps in the right direction, these policies and programs ONLY apply to those who are terminally ill, with six months or less of life, requiring signing off by various medical professionals, and also for the patient to be ill enough yet have enough capacity to self-administer the drug and sound of mind, among other criteria. Therefore, it is only applicable towards those who are already dying or will die relatively soon. Don't mistake that for lack of support of current policy however… It is great that the people who are terminally ill are benefiting from such legislation and will be able to hasten their death to avoid unnecessary suffering, but the people who need it the most, mainly those with chronic conditions, yet non-terminal, are being denied and thus they either end up letting nature take it's course, having to travel elsewhere where the eligibility criteria is more lax and accessible, or even attempting to DIY on their own (which has it's own risks as well).
One such example is a person named Eddie (linked from the Reddit thread as well as the video from 2024) who once lived a vibrant, active life, had many things going for him and is on the way to becoming an ED nurse, and otherwise would have had a fulfilling life. All of that was taken away because of a biking accident where he broke his neck and later became a quadriplegic. Since California's death with dignity law only allowed those who were terminally ill with six months or less to live, he would not have qualified for such services. After spending nearly a decade in that condition, he decided it was too much to continue sentience and fortunately his roommates who were also his caretakers respected his decision. He then flew to Switzerland, which allowed foreigners seeking assisted suicide and death with dignity (Dignitas most likely) to access it. He then ended his suffering in Switzerland, surrounded by loved ones and avoided potentially a worse death (through natural causes or other causes) as well as additional, prolonged suffering. Of course, if California law had expanded eligibility to those who have chronic, permanent conditions (in his case, quadriplegia) then he would have likely chosen to die in his current state of residence, California instead of traveling overseas to Switzerland to get the service.
In conclusion, I believe that with more states legalizing death with dignity, is a good step in the right direction and certainly progression towards the right to die, there still remains an important change that has yet to come. This would be the expansion of existing eligibility criteria for death with dignity, not just for the terminally ill with six months or less to live, but for those with ongoing, chronic (and likely permanent ailments, both mental and physical) conditions with little prospects of improvement. It would be unethical and immoral to hold these people (with non-terminal illnesses) to sentience in an gamble that things will somehow improve in the future, be it months, years, or decades further. That would be the next logical step in really helping those who are currently suffering, which is expansion of eligibility criteria, and with reasonable safeguards such as waiting periods, screenings, and what not.
