Pages

Tuesday, November 11, 2014

The Right to Die and Some Matters Arising


Brittany Maynard, 29, who was diagnosed with a stage 4 glioblastoma, a terminal and aggressive brain tumour, eventually ended her life Saturday, November 1, 2014, in Portland, Oregon, with a fatal dose of barbiturates which was prescribed by a physician.

In a video released a couple of days before her death, she indicated that her greatest fear was losing the capacity to make the choice to take her life. She was diagnosed with an aggressive brain tumour in January 2014 and was told in April 2014 that she would have six (6) months to live. However, at the end of October 2014, she was still alive and functioning. Eventually, she decided November 1, 2014, was the right date to end her life. 

The story brings up several issues which may deserve some closer look in examining the concept of the Right to Die:
  1. What should be the role of physicians in this circumstance considering the Oath medical doctors swear to preserving life? 
  2. When doctors tell some terminally ill patients that they have a certain period to live, what exactly do they mean by that considering that many patients have defied such “predictions”, sometimes living functional lives weeks, months and years past predicted time? Have we ever correctly predicted the biology of a particular tumour or course of disease in different people at different times and places or even the same disease in a particular person at different times and places? 
  3. What is the role of social media in people’s decision to end their lives and when to end it? 
  4.  Was Brittany under any form of pressure to end her life in line with the predicted time and expectations of the considerable following garnered on social media taking into account she was reconsidering the early November date she had set because she felt well? Could there have been some pressure to meet certain expectations? 
  5. Is there some danger of bandwagon effect and other unintended consequences in streaming such delicate and irreversible decisions on social and conventional media as was the case in Brittany Maynard? 
  6. Is the Right to Life the other side of the coin of the Right to Die? If not, why do we choose to treat these two realities of existence differently about our rights therein? 
  7. Have we considered all those who are really hurt in such assisted suicide as was the case of Brittany and do such people deserve to be heard dispassionately?
  8. Is it possible to step out of the usual sentiments and debate assisted suicide with mutual respect and consideration to all the different positions or views, especially with all the media frenzy that has accompanied the index case? 
  9. How do we protect vulnerable people, elderly and disabled people who may suffer irreversible harm should assisted suicide be legalized considering the enormous pressure references like that of Brittany could bring about?
  10. Could assisted suicide be used, albeit inadvertently, as a cost-cutting measure in a broken, expensive and ineffective healthcare system? 
  11. What will be the death certificate of Brittany Maynard bear as the cause and manner of death?
  12. What are other matters arising in your respective jurisdictions?
Meanwhile, my sympathies to the family and friends of Brittany at their loss, and also to all those who wished she had lived even a day longer. We should be encouraged to discuss the circumstances surrounding her death and take a hard look, devoid of sentiments as much as possible, in evaluating what this circumstance presents to the rest of the community in this push for the Right to Die. I invite as many people as are willing to contribute in addressing any of the eleven issues raised above (and more) as I’m personally eager to listen and learn from what others think should be our approach to this very delicate and somewhat controversial and divisive subject.

Translate