Thanks to everyone who made suggestions to deal with Jane’s presumptive problems (see previous post). If Jane had an independent social worker–one not in her healthcare system–that person might respond to Jane’s difficulties with something like the following:
Many people with debilitating and irreversible health conditions do not have supportive family and friends. They include include people with metastatic cancer, irreversible neurological conditions, and multiple medical problems that have taken away any enjoyment and quality of life as determined by them. They no longer want to continue living because they know that their condition will only worsen, and for them it is already beyond bad. There is no realistic hope that their lives will improve. Most of the time, family members and friends are able to see the suffering in their loved one’s life and understand a desire to end the suffering. But this is not always the case, as illustrated in this post.
If we use “existential suffering” as a stand-in for all of the related terms we use, it will help us discuss what we may mean by them. Certainly, distress, dread, angst, anxiety, anguish, or crisis all suggest suffering at least in a mental or psychological sense, a kind of suffering that all people encounter at one point or another in their lives, or even daily. Some existential suffering can be mitigated through changes in circumstances or with the help of others, but when one is dying, whether slowly or rapidly, one may wish to forego the suffering whether or not there may be temporary relief for it.
A Dutch contribution to how we look at death and dying is provided by Cornelis J. “Jack” van Dyjk.
A Washington state man, Aaron McQ, described his illness (a rare form of ALS) as “terrifying . . . like waking up every morning in quicksand.” He agreed to discuss his experience with Kaiser News to help provide more understanding about how users feel after qualifying for PAD. Over 3,000 terminally ill residents in the US have used PAD laws since Oregon’s first took effect twenty years ago. This is one man’s experience.
A former Dominican priest shares his thoughts on ending life gracefully after a fruitful time on this earth.
All of the Death With Dignity (DWD) laws now in the US are modeled after the Oregon law that went into effect in 1997. The other jurisdictions that have adopted such a law include Washington, Vermont, Washington, D.C., Colorado, California, and Hawaii. A judicial decision in Montana allows DWD to be practiced with cooperating doctors.
Missing from all of these laws is the right of people who have specific kinds of incurable, debilitating, painful, or extremely distressing medical conditions, but are not necessarily within six months of dying, to use these laws.
No, it is not an obituary for a specific individual. It is an obituary that recognizes and celebrates taking control of one’s end-of-life suffering.
On April 16, 2018, the Final Exit Network (FEN) filed a lawsuit in federal district court against the State of Minnesota. The suit asks the court to declare that Minnesota’s law prohibiting speaking to a person about how to hasten her own death is a violation of the free speech clause of the First Amendment of the US Constitution. The suit seeks, also, to void FEN’s conviction under the statute, and to bar the State of Minnesota from again initiating a prosecution of FEN, and its personnel, under the statute based solely on the utterance of “speech” that “enables” a suicide.
Most objectors to the right to die stand on religious grounds, claiming that God gave life and only God can take life away. Also, any deliberate ending of life is breaking the sixth commandment and therefore a mortal sin. Life is sacred and must be preserved at all costs, only God can decide when and how our lives will end, and Christians are supposed to suffer because it allows them to empathize with Jesus’ suffering.
This interpretation of the sixth commandment is, in fact, wrong.
