Brittany Maynard, 29-year-old, just recently passed away from a severe form of glioblastoma, a rare and aggressive form of brain cancer. Prior to her brave decision of death, she evaluated the options offered to her with her husband, Dan Diaz, and other close relatives. She could try to combat the cancer. The tumor on her brain was so large the doctor’s recommended full brain radiation, which would have deteriorated Maynard’s quality of life. Her scalp would be covered in painful, first degree burns from the radiation. The pain medicine used to treat the harsh symptoms associated with the chemotherapy and glioblastoma would most likely cause her to experience a change in personality as well as the loss of verbal, cognitive, and realistically, any other motor skill. Because of her young age and health, Maynard’s grueling stay on Earth would have been prolonged and tiring for her and her family. Brittany Maynard knew that death was inevitable and the “recommended treatments would have destroyed the time [she] had left” (Maynard).

She then began to explore Death with Dignity, an act designed for the terminally ill who only have six months, or less, left to live. It’s a program derived from Physician-assisted suicides, but over the years, it has morphed into something much more reasonable and developed. After meeting the many requirements, a physician prescribes a lethal dose of medication that when ingested, life will end.  Maynard quickly decided that this was the path for her. When her time came, it would save her family from the discomforts of watching someone they love die a painful death, and her from having to experience that painful death. She consumed the medication November first, and passed away in the arms of her husband and family, on her own terms.

  Laws enabling acts such as Death with Dignity have only been passed in five states. This is a complete and utter injustice. As humans, we all have the basic right to life and death. For the state to deny people with severe sickness, the right to a peaceful passing is absurd. Since when have they had the power to tell someone they deserve to suffer? Who has the right to make the private choice of continuing life, or ending it, for someone who is not themselves?

The decision that decides your fate is something only you can determine. It should not be in the hands of the state or federal legislature. We all  have the natural rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. As citizens of the United States, due process, which protects a human’s rights and makes sure all beings are treated fairly, is offered to everyone. Prohibiting assisted death is a direct restriction on these personal liberties. Justice insists that all cases would be treated the same, and if that is the goal, the right to choose death should be a choice offered to everyone. If a terminally ill patient decides to end treatment, they have chosen death, so assisted suicides must be an option as well. Both outcomes inevitably lead to the patient passing.  However, one is completely fine, while the other is under scrutiny and deemed unethical. In order to truly be just, and fair, both must be offered to the terminally ill.

Not only is the Death with Dignity Act just, it is compassionate. The physical and emotional suffering a patient with a vicious form of sickness will experience is often times more than most of us can comprehend. Although there are new and innovative medicinal technologies, not all suffering can be eased, or muted. By allowing patients to decide, on their own terms, the timing and manner of their death is the benevolent response to unbearable pain. If we deny them the right to decide their death, we are saying they deserve to be put through the physical, mental, and emotional strain of intense anguish. It implies that for the time they have left, they should be suffering, and in pain. No one, under any circumstances, should have to be put through such physical torment, forcefully, without their own consent.

The reality of all of this is assisted death already occurs. If it is legalized, there will be more discussion between physician and patient, allowing for even safer and more reasonable exercises of the right. Withholding the right to end suffering is completely inequitable; there is no justification whatsoever to refuse death.

Some might say that assisted death conflicts with religious beliefs and practices, and therefore, it should not be legalized. However, the United States was founded on the idea that church and state should be separated. Religious associations have no right to limit an American’s rights, including that of death. They can vote against it, but they cannot dictate one’s decision. Another argument often made is that assisted deaths conflict with the Hippocratic Oath. This is false because the Oath states, "be of benefit, or at least do no harm." Harm can be defined differently for each patient. For instance, for one, pain and suffering could be described as letting their bodies control their death, rather than themselves. Allowing one to make their own decision,whether it be death, or life, benefits the patient more so than not offering the option. 

All of this to say the Death with Dignity Act should be legalized in all states. Not every terminally ill patient, with less than six months to live, has to choose assisted death, but it should be a reasonable option. Dan Diaz said this to CNN on his wife’s, Brittany Maynard, passing:

“It truly was the most peaceful experience you could ever hope for when you talk about a person’s passing...The suffering and the torment and everything she had gone through, that was finally lifted” (Diaz).

It is an injustice to deny families the right to feel this peace and comfort. Likewise, to deny a person the right to a death that will cease the pain, the tears, and the suffering is cruel. The Death with Dignity Act is the humane alternative to the excruciating experience of dying with an unforgiving sickness. An assisted death is not a choice everyone has to choose, but it is a choice that should be offered to all.