The extent of autonomy granted by the government to its citizens has been in great

question over recent years in relation to what choices you can make for your own health in your
dying days. Should a terminally ill patient be allowed to choose to be euthanized over dying a
slow and painful death by nature?
According to the International Task Force in Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide FAQ,
euthanasia is defined as the intentional killing by act or omission of a dependent human being
for his or her alleged benefit, emphasis on the word killing as euthanasia requires the offender
to physically put the patient to death. (International Task Force in Euthanasia and Assisted
Suicide's FAQs) Euthanasia has been regarded as an illegal act in the United States but assisted
suicide has been legalized in Oregon, New Mexico, Vermont, Washington, and Montana.
(Euthanasia and assisted suicide laws around the world 3) Assisted suicide is a form of
euthanasia in which a physician allows the patient the opportunity to end their own life by
providing them with lethal drugs but takes no part in the execution process. (International Task
Force in Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide's FAQs)
Winston Ross writes in Newsweek magazine about his grandmother whom, diagnosed
with dementia, had broken both hips, her pelvis, and managed to fall out of her wheelchair head
first allowing the 91 year old women to look as if she had been in a barroom brawl. He goes on
to describe the high dosage of medication nursing staff had to administer to her for her own
safety and the effects it had on her quality of life, describing her as being present but not really
there. Ross identifies with the benefits of assisted suicide as he has seen first hand what happens
after the point of no return. After being asked by the family to lower the dosage on her
medication, they found that all that was left of Grandma was a disoriented woman in great agony

and discomfort, a state that no family member wishes to see their loved one in. (1-2) Death With
Dignity Laws have been passed in both Oregon and Washington to allow terminally ill patients
to have a choice before they get to the lucid state of Ross grandmother. Under Oregons Death
with Dignity Law, if a patient meets the residency residency requirements and has been given
less than six months to live a doctor can prescribe an ill patient with a lethal dose of medication
if they have appealed orally to such physician twice (separated by fifteen days) and completed a
documented request form signed also by two witnesses. The prescription may be filled two days
after the written request was received and is entirely up to the patient to administer the drug.
(Engber, par. 3-5)
Brittany Maynard, born in California, moved to Oregon for the sole purpose of taking
advantage of the Death with Dignity Law. Maynard was a twenty nine year old newly-wed at the
time of her death by assisted suicide. After a long fought battle with stage 4 glioblastoma, the
most deadly, most prevalent form [of brain cancer], (Brittany Maynard's Death: Why Is Brain
Cancer So Lethal? par.2) Maynard decided that the cancer had taken as much from her as she
was willing to allow it to. In Chans article, Maynard identifies that her brain cancer is going to
cause her a slow and painful, inevitable death so she chooses instead to die with dignity under
Oregon law. (par.6)

Theologian, Theo Boer, from the Netherlands argues the legalization of

assisted suicide upon his love of autonomy but states that it has taken precedence over peoples
minds and morals as it eliminates ones composure and peace within self as well as discourages
optimism in diagnosed patients. Boer argues that the end of autonomy begins with the
legalization of euthanasia. (6) But cancer patient, Brittany Maynard counters this, stating that
being diagnosed with a terminal illness was not something she chose therefore death completely

out of her authority, Maynard praises Oregons Death with Dignity Law as it allowed her the
freedom to pass away on her own terms, sparing her a slow and hideous death. (par. 6) In regards
to what most people call and brave and courageous act by Maynard, National Catholic Reporter,
Kelly Stewart identifies her decision to partake in assisted suicide the cheapening of human
life and goes on to detail blogger, Michael Sean Winters point that suffering also has value and
that the practice of ending such pain before nature takes its course is a disinclination to
acknowledge and trust in God.
The Hastings Center Reports publishes an article by Daniel Lee where Lee presents his
unease about our physicians who, trained for the purpose of sustaining lives, use their knowledge
and degrees to end it. For as long as our government has existed it has made it a priority to
forestall self destructive behavior in the lives of its citizens. John Stuart Mill addresses freedom
advocates in On Liberty, demoralizing and placing blame upon the physicians that allow access
for other human beings to kill themselves, stating that A person should be free to do as he likes
in his own concerns, but he ought not be free to do as he likes in acting for another, under the
pretext that the affairs of the other are his own affairs. (17)
The purpose of euthanasia is to allow ailing patients to make the decision to end their
own suffering. However, allowing one person to do so creates a slippery slope in what
requirements each patient must meet to be granted the right to take their own life because all
cases are different. In the Netherlands euthanasia is thriving, undeterred by the fact that it is still
illegal, Author Winston Ross of Newsweek magazine, interviews healthy Netherland resident,
Jannie Willemsen about the official document she has acquired allowing a physician to end her
life under the conditions she has implemented, these conditions being that she becomes badly

handicapped, if she goes blind, looses hearing, is no longer independent enough to perform
critical tasks such as eating, drinking, and walking on her own, or is suffering from dementia.
For Jannie, these things are what make living worthwhile which is enough justification for the
Dutch government to grant her euthanasia wishes regardless to whether or not her illness is
terminal. (3-4) But then the envelope stretches a little further as Canadian couple Betty and
George Columbias get National attention for their request to die side by side through government
approved euthanasia. George Columbias was diagnosed with a serious heart disease and Betty
justified her means of simultaneous suicide to the world in a documentary from 2007,The Suicide
Tourist, "From the day we got married, [my husband] was all my life....What would be better
than to die together, you know, to die in each other's arms?. Jacob Appel, a bioethicist and
medical historian, suggests that before a critic call Mrs. Columbias insane for wanting to end her
perfectly healthy life, they first evaluate whether or not a completely sane person could also want
to die along side of her ailing love of so many years. Appel calls this a no brainer, of course a
woman could love her spouse enough to want to die along side of him but this heart warming
couple isn't enough for Appel to oppose the governments decision to deny Betty the freedom to
legally end her own life. Appel makes a clear warning about the grey spots that will come
along with allowing just anybody to participate in euthanasia, the meaning of autonomy can be
molded into whatever we want it to mean if we change the focus of the word from being how we
choose to live, to how we choose to die. When one person is allowed to alter the question then
what stops others from doing the same, who then draws the line? (1)