4
November
Death with dignity upholds freedom of choice
m K aitlyn L athrop ___________
Staff Reporter
Suicide: a last resort;
considered to be the worst
way "out." In almost all
cases when someone
commits suicide, there is no
benefit and it is done out of
feelings like depression and
hopelessness. What if, instead
of causing physical and
emotional pain to the victim
and their family and friends,
it alleviates suffering?
According to U.S. law,
committing suicide is illegal.
However, there is a law
that states that someone
with a fatal illness can use
medication prescribed by
their doctor to commit
suicide. So far, Oregon is the
only state that permits it. If a
doctor anywhere, other than
Oregon, assisted their patient
in committing suicide, it
would be considered murder.
In assisted suicide, there
are strict conditions. The
patient must pass a round
of psychological testing
and not have any mental
illness. There must be two
witnesses, one must have no
family relation to the patient.
The first time they ask their
doctor, they have to wait at
least 15 days and then ask a
second time. The doctor will
then give them the pills that
will stop the heart shortly
after they are taken. All that's
left is for the patient to decide
when to take them.
This is perhaps the most
controversial law, ethically
and politically. Some who
oppose it may because they
believe that "giving up" isn't
the option no matter how
bleak the prognosis, while
those who favor it believe
that if someone will definitely
die from their ailment,
why suffer until then?
Surprisingly, this isn't the
main argument for congress.
The government already tells
us many things we can, can't,
or have to do, so shouldn't
we at least have a say over
what we do with our bodies?
Does the administration
make it illegal in all states
Live with dignity instead of dying with it
K aitlyn R agan
Staff Reporter
The Death with Dignity
Act is an Oregon bill enacted
in 1997 which allows
terminally-ill patients to
request that their life be
ended by a physician. I
know that assisted suicide
is a very touchy subject, and
that it is highly personal,
yet I cannot help voicing my
opinion. I know that I have
never experienced what it
fe e ls lik e to b e on my death
bed and cannot even imagine
what pain these people must
be in, but I do not believe
that anyone's life should be
prematurely ended.
I believe that every minute
of life is given for a reason
and that each and every one
is equally important, even
those moments right before
death. I believe in miracles.
Even if a patient is not
healed, he or she may make
decisions, have thoughts
and say things to loved ones
that can change lives. I know
to some this point will be
completely irrelevant or even
A
stupid, but I believe that there
is a life after death and that
people's minds and hearts
can be changed in even the
last seconds of life in ways
that make a difference. Who
are we to take those away?
It seems inconsiderate to say
that someone who is sick is
less valuable than someone
who is healthy. All life is
precious.
The fact that America has a
separation of church and state
is sure to be used in rebuttal
to this argument; however
when it comes to issues like
this, how can we possibly
make a decision based on
anything but morality? And
really, if you think about it,
all our laws are founded on
values and principles that,
even though we may not want
to admit it, all link somehow
back to faith-based beliefs,
especially in America.
Killing is simply not right.
If someone was convicted of
murder, even if it was found
that the victim had asked to
be killed, would that make
them any less guilty or the
ifier
West Linn High School, 5464 West A Street, West Linn, OR 97068
(503) 673-7843 »fax: (503)657-8710 •
wlhs-amplifier@wlhs.wlwv.kl2.or.us
The Amplifier is published approximately every four weeks by the West
Linn High School Advanced Journalism class. Opinions expressed in
commentaries and editorials represent only those of the writer, and are
not necessarily the opinions of West Linn High School, its administration,
faculty, staff, or student body.
Editors-in-Chief
Sarah Chicoine
Jon Helmkamp
Copy Editor:
Nick Amtz
Photo Editor:
Malia Chong
Business Editors:
Christopher Erbin
Kelsey Schrader
Section Editors
News: Hilli Ciavarello
Forum: Sarah Chicoine
Features: Christopher Erbin
Sports: JonH elm kam p
Entertainment: Kelsey Schrader
Staff Reporters
Nick Amtz, Isaac Callagan, Em-
malie Cox, Adam Holmes, Dal
ton Kuepker, Calley Lathrop,
Kira Matsuoka, Kaitlyn Ragan,
Lexi Welp, Mary Wood
Contributing Writer
Valorie Wallace
Photographers
Sarah Chicoine, Jon Helmkamp,
Adam Holmes, Kira Matsuoka
Adviser
Ann Breyne
crime any less wrong? I know
that the process of making
sure the patient is mentally
capable and
error
abuse,
I do not
think
we are
qualified
to decide
whether
the quality
of a person's
life is worth
sustaining. If we
do come to the conclusion
that people should be able
to choose whether their life
continues or ends, then how
do we decide under what
circumstances this decision be
allowed? Oregon is the only
state in the country that has
a law like this one, and there
is a reason for that. Suicide
is illegal and how does the
act being done by a qualified
professional make it less
wrong? Even if you don't
agree that suicide should be
against the law, this point
should at least show a major
contradiction in the legality
of the situation. If we say that
someone should be able to
decide whether they live or
die, who are we then to put
parameters on under what
specific circumstances and
terms that decision be made?
We either give them the whole
right or we don't, otherwise it
just doesn't make sense.
Another contradiction I see
with the Act is the fact that
doctors are no longer simply
healers but sometimes killers.
Doctors are only responsible
to cure their patients if the
patients want it, otherwise
that person is welcome to
sign a paper, be examined by
a psychiatrist, recite a written
request in front of witnesses
and have the physician
provide them with
are
found
which
could have
saved someone's life, or there
was a misdiagnosis? Even if
these possibilities are highly
improbable they should not
be ignored. We're dealing
with life and death here
and all possibilities for error
must be examined. We have
to decide whether we have
enough faith in ourselves and
our own understanding to
make such a decision as this.
If we kill someone we must
be absolutely sure that it is
for credible and honorable
reasons; and frankly, I'm just
not convinced.
but one because they think
it's ethically wrong, or is it
really an attempt to have
control over one of the few
things they don't have a say
in? Another issue raised is
separation of church and
state, as many religions
consider committing suicide
against God. This isn't
supposed to affect congress'
decisions, as separation of
church and state prohibits it.
Legally, "death with dignity,"
what committing suicide in
that circumstance is called,
cannot be influenced by
religion.
What we choose to do to
ourselves physically cannot
and should not be under the
government's control. The
first amendment, freedom
of speech, states that we are
free to practice any
form of speech.
Why couldn't there
be "freedom of
physical speech,"
and it specifically
catered to the right that we
choose what happens to our
bodies? If a terminal
cancer patient has
nothing to live foi4
but six months of
worsening pain
and suffering,
shouldn't
their wants for
themselves matter?
As American citizens
living in a democracy, we
should be allowed to have
control over our minds and
bodies. As Maya Angelou
once said, "making a living
is not the same as making a
life." Life is filled with beauty
and happiness, but it always
ends in death. Suicide is
another word for death, and
death is something we all
fear. The sooner we accept
it, the sooner we accept the
fact that no matter how
much power we want or
have, there are some things
we cannot and should not
control.
DEATH WITH DIGNITY
The year that Oregonians
passed Ballot Measure 16.
Margin by which Ballot
Measure 16 was passed.
Number of Oregonians
who have utilized assisted
suicide to end their lives.