Franco 1

James Franco
UWRT 1102
Connie Douglas
22 April 2015
Grade A Relief
The doctor tells you that you have a grade four brain tumor, a gliboblastoma. By
now youre aware of the consequences and the doctor tells you that you have three
months of life remaining. Your vision is already deteriorating and you get frequent,
spontaneous rushes of pain throughout the day. By the time your last month comes
around, youll be paralyzed in a deathbed with no autonomy. Your breathing relies on the
assistance of a ventilator because your brain has lost autonomic function as well as your
motor functions. Does the remainder of your life sound worth living for? Why cant you
request a drug that will suddenly end your suffering peacefully? If youre living in
Oregon, Vermont or Washington you can do so. The practice is termed physician-assisted
suicide. Its the practice where two physicians will provide a terminally ill patient with a
dose of a lethal drug. This practice should become available throughout the United States
to relieve suffering or soon to be suffering individuals of pain; not doing so will only
continue to degrade the value of human life and promote furthering suffering.
Many diseases and cancers degrade the human body, physically. When the
progression of the illness is pushed to the point where the individual has no control over
their body, the character of the individual changes. The symptoms of having a stage four
gliboblastoma include: nausea, vomiting, loss of vision, loss of movement, memory loss,
seizures and so on. When you strip an individuals right to alleviate his or her pain by

Franco 2
means of ending their own life, it increases the distress that they will experience. Lets
say an individual at war had part of his arm blown off by a grenade; the wound is
exposed to millions of bacteria, thus leading to infection. To prevent the spread of
bacteria, the individual will have his arm amputated. If we were to prevent the soldier
from having his arm amputated, we are only causing the infection to degrade his body. It
will kill him at some point. This analogy only fits the concept of stripping an individuals
right in context with assisted suicide. Once the soldier has his arm amputated, he can
continue to live a life without the fear of the bacteria infecting his body, so therefore he
doesnt have the need or want to end his life. Now, if we are referring to a life ending
disease or cancer, then an individual should be allowed to make the choice of when and
how they die. Its not much of an option between life and death because they will die.
They are only ending their lives on an earlier note.
Its not only the effect of physician-assisted suicide that will alleviate the
individual, but it is also the comfort provided by having the right to it. When an
individual has options, it provides them with ease. Knowing that they dont have to live
in a state of decay provides them with the relief that they dont have to suffer. Peg
Sandeen, the executive director of the Death With Dignity National Center says its a
peace of mind thing. When individuals have choice it gives them hope for something to
get better. If one way doesnt work out, another way will. The idea of choice is the
biggest factor in regards to the debate. You have your popular issues such as abortion and
the death penalty that have Americans at war. The topic of physician-assisted suicide falls
into that category. America is found on the idea of freedom and liberty. The only issue
with this regarding physician-assisted suicide is the fact that we are a democracy. People

Franco 3
can have the freedom to do and say things, but it must be selected for through popular
vote. The central idea revolves around autonomy.
One can technically end their life through the Patient Self-Determination Act.
This act was passed in 1991 and requires health institutions to develop written policies
that inform patients on their right to deny or accept medical care. So if your life depends
on a ventilator to assist your breathing, you can refuse it, which will lead to your death.
Do you really want to end life on the absence of oxygen? Do you want to end your life
gasping for your last breath of air? Wouldnt it be more acceptable to be surrounded by
the people you love and end your life with ease?
Opponents argue of abuse in assisted suicide and flaws in the process that
qualifies an individual for assisted suicide. They argue that as assisted suicide becomes
prevalent, the use of it will soar. However, the point of assisted suicide is to alleviate the
millions of suffering individuals with only months left to live. This spike in use correlates
to the amount of sick individuals. There isnt any way for an individual to abuse the
substance, because in order to qualify, they must have six months or less to live. The flaw
that opponents see in the process is that there is no psychiatric evaluation required before
giving the patient the dose of lethal drug. If the patient is terminally ill and seems to be
mentally competent, there shouldnt be a need for more requirements. The doctor can
have the patient undergo a psychiatric evaluation.
Physician-assisted suicide isnt just for anyone. Recipients of the drug must
already be in the process of dying and must be mentally competent. Think of all the
different diseases and cancers that are malicious. A man that survived cancer once told

Franco 4
me that he would never wish cancer on his worst enemy, so why prevent an individual
suffering from it from ending their own life?