On Nov. 1, 29-year-old Brittany Maynard fulfilled her wish to end her own life.
In her final months, Maynard became the face of Oregon’s “death with dignity act.” Now many question whether there should be a wider range of acceptance of this law.
Maynard was diagnosed with glioblastoma — a fatal brain tumor — earlier this year. Not willing to allow the disease to control her life, she decided to end it on her own accord, through physician-assisted suicide.
Maynard was diagnosed in her home state of California, where her life-ending decision was not legally supported.
So, while facing the most dismal decision a living thing could possibly face, Maynard was also put through the emotional toll of uprooting and relocating her life.
The arguments against the right to take your own life exist — many question the right of one of God’s children to alter his plan.
While this argument is made within the The Express, the contrary is also made.
If it is considered humane to end the life of a pet that has been faced with an unwinnable battle against disease, how could it be considered anything different with a human?
A focus should be put on quality of life rather than quantity of life.
Obviously, a child or sibling holds far more emotional attachment than the family beagle, but how does a lawmaker have the power to draw that line?
Demanding that someone within the bounds of a particular state either suffer through the final days, weeks or months of the disease is not our decision to make. Forcing a terminally ill patient to suffer through the pain and strain is a grotesque stance, not only for the patient, but also for the family of the patient.
It is a bizarre kind of moral masochism that needs to be purged from our society.
Montana, New Mexico, Oregon, Vermont and Washington are all states that have legal physician-aided death, and perhaps it is something that should be voted on in the other 46.