“My dream is that every terminally ill American has access to the choice to die on their own terms with dignity. Please take an active role to make this a reality.” – Brittany Maynard
On November 1, 2014, Brittany Maynard died in the arms of her husband. While many American’s were shocked by the decision and action she took, others were accepting of this human right. Twenty-nine year-old Brittany Maynard had terminal brain cancer and with her family’s support decided to move to Oregon, one of the six states that legally offers aid-in-dying medication. After moving to Oregon Brittany became an advocate for death with dignity amongst terminally ill Americans.
While many do not agree with Brittany’s decision, others completely accept her action as a human right. The question however to consider in the larger issue of the ‘death with dignity’ movement, is not what society can do, but should anything be done? As a firm believer in individual rights, I think it is important to implement Brittany’s beliefs and recognize that people have the right to make their own choices, particularly when it comes to how individuals live their life. If a patient has a desire to end their own life due to a terminal illness that creates a feeling of loss and suffrering, I believe it’s acceptable for them to make the choice of whether or not they want to continue living. In psychological terms, the issue of man’s survival does not confront his consciousness as an issue of “life or death,” but as an issue of “happiness or suffering.”
Man must make the decision for his own life. Man must think, with rationale whether or not this action will ultimately be “good” or “evil”, while an outsider may subjectively view this as selfishness, defined as concern with one’s own interests. The concept of selfishness does not include a moral evaluation, it does not tell us whether concern with one’s own interest is good or evil. Moreover, it is a task one must take upon himself. Man must choose his actions, values and goals, by the standard of that which is proper to man—in order to achieve, maintain, fulfill and enjoy that ultimate value end in itself which is his own life.
I believe there are three cardinal values, which encompass one’s ultimate values. These virtues are Rationality, Productiveness and Pride. Rationality, is defined as judgment for one’s actions according to his knowledge and means of recognition. A terminally ill patient will, in good judgment, consider his disease and the suffering he is feeling to end his terminal pain. The next virtue is Productiveness, defined as the most beneficial and purposeful way to use your mind. I suppose when hearing shocking news such as this, an individual may feel like there is no longer purpose to one’s life. As Brittany Maynard says, “”I still feel good enough, and I still have enough joy, and I still laugh and smile with my family and friends enough that it doesn’t seem like the right time right now. But it will come, because I feel myself getting sicker. It’s happening each week.” This illness restrains her from being as productive as she wants to be which leads me to the last virtue is Pride: Pride can best be described as “moral ambitiousness,” one must hold themselves to the highest value by achieving their own moral perfection. When being diagnosed with a terminal illness people may feel powerless, and that they can no longer reach their moral perfection. With the help of this end-of-life- option individuals are able to die with dignity.
It is difficult for some to understand an action like this in our culture today, but with the help of Brittany and other advocates, patients will be able to have choice. Brittany made a choice to no longer suffer and in doing so, she was able to impact lives and change the legislative law in California. Although she died, her powerful message lives on. I will close and leave you with the question of Brittany Maynard, “who has the right to tell me that I don’t deserve this choice?”