Cancer sufferer Brittany Maynard ends life at age of 29

[+Frank B. Subscriber²]

Cancer sufferer Brittany Maynard ends life at age of 29

Oregon woman who had become an advocate for death-with-dignity movement following her terminal cancer diagnosis has taken her own life after leaving family last message

 

A terminally ill US woman who sparked a national debate about euthanasia after announcing she wanted to end her life at the age of 29, has died.

 

Brittany Maynard, who had become an outspoken advocate for patient's rights following her terminal cancer diagnosis, died at home after taking lethal medication prescribed by a doctor.

 

Mrs Maynard, of Portland, Oregon, was told in January she had a stage four malignant brain tumour and had only six months to live.

 

Following months of research and a failed operation to remove the tumour, Mrs Maynard made the decision not to undergo further treatment.

 

She released a video message earlier this year saying she wanted to ?die with dignity? and planned to end her life on November 1, just before her 30th birthday.

 

"My glioblastoma is going to kill me and that's out of my control," she said. "Being able to go with dignity is less terrifying."

 

In a final message posted to family and friends, Mrs Maynard, whose condition had deteriorated in recent weeks, wrote on Saturday: "Goodbye to all my dear friends and family that I love.

 

"Today is the day I have chosen to pass away with dignity in the face of my terminal illness... the world is a beautiful place, travel has been my greatest teacher, my close friends and folks are the greatest givers... goodbye world. Spread good energy. Pay it forward!"

 

On Thursday, she had released a new video in which she said she might temporarily delay the self-imposed deadline because she was still experiencing ?enough joy? to want to live.

 

"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? she said.

 

?But it will come, because I feel myself getting sicker. It's happening each week."

 

Mrs Maynard had said the worst thing that could happen to her would be to wait too long and her autonomy be taken away by the disease.

But the delay would be a short one.

 

Confirming news of her death, her cousin Erica Holmes-Kremitzki, paid tribute to Mrs Maynard on her social media account, writing: "She will live on in our hearts and I will continue to share her message, just as I promised her I would.

 

"Fly with the angels, Brittany. I know you'll watch over us all."

 

Mrs Maynard compiled a "bucket list" of things to do before she died. Her last trip would be to the Grand Canyon with family at the end of last month.

 

Her illness had worsened in recent weeks and Mrs Maynard complained of stroke-like symptoms and described a recent "terrifying" day when she had two seizures and found herself unable to say her husband's name.

 

Compassion and Choices, an end-of-life choice advocacy group that has been working closely with Mrs Maynard, said she passed peacefully in her bed ?surrounded by close family and loved ones."

 

"Brittany has died, but her love of life and nature, her passion and spirit endure," Barbara Coombs Lee, the organisation's president, added.

 

"In Brittany's memory, do what matters most. And tell those you love how much they matter to you. We will work to carry on her legacy of bringing end-of-life choice to all Americans."

 

Following her diagnosis, Mrs Maynard and her husband Daniel Diaz made the decision to move from their native San Francisco, California, to Oregon - one of five US states that have a "death with dignity" law legalising physician-assisted dying.

 

Under the law, the person must be capable, an adult, live in Oregon and have been diagnosed with a terminal illness that will lead to death within six months.

It has so far allowed hundreds of terminally ill people to end their lives by taking a medication prescribed by doctors.

 

Her story made headlines around the world, and she was featured on the cover of last week's People magazine in the US - a country fiercely divided over the legislation.

 

She became the public face of the right-to-die movement, supported by Compassion and Choices.

 

?My dream is that every terminally ill American has access to the choice to die on their own terms with dignity,? she wrote on the organisation's website.

 

Her decision to take her own life has sharply divided public opinion. On Sunday night some social media users expressed their support, while others criticised her actions as selfish.

 

Neal Dewing from Virginia wrote on his Twitter: ?Sad to hear about Brittany Maynard. Suicide is always wrong. She made the wrong decision.?

 

Another, Drew Johnson, said: ?Brittany Maynard was an amazing, courageous advocate for liberty. She exercised the most important right of all--the right of self-ownership.?

 

In the video released earlier this year explaining her decision, which has since received more than nine million views, she said: "I did not want this nightmare scenario for my family so I started researching death with dignity. I quickly decided that death with dignity was the best option for me and my family.

 

"I do not want to die. But I am dying. And I want to die on my own terms."

 

Source: The Telegraph

[statm1]

About the snide tweet about her committing suicide.... Who are any of us to judge someone for wanting to have control over a terminal illness? Shame on you!

[theyarecomingforyou]

I would probably do the same in her position. At least she got to go out on her own terms.

[Haggis Veteran]

Good on her

 

It was her choice, it was her body

 

No one should ever be allowed to tell you what you can and cant do to your own body

[DocM]

My concern is abuse of the system; some greedy relatives pressuring a senior or ill person to take the plunge, perhaps with the aid of an unscrupulous (or Angel of Death, they DO exist) physician, shrink, nurse practitioner etc.

[Barney T. Administrators]

This was a terribly tragic story, but at least she had the right to die with dignity and without government politicians trying to tell her how to live the remaining days of her life. She was the master of her own ship, chose her death and did it with grace.

[HawkMan]

My concern is abuse of the system; some greedy relatives pressuring a senior or ill person to take the plunge, perhaps with the aid of an unscrupulous (or Angel of Death, they DO exist) physician, shrink, nurse practitioner etc.

 

Police the system, don't make the abuse of a few lead to the torment of many. 

[Hum]

Bon voyage -- hope she has a better life next time.

 

I admire her bravery.

[DocM]

Police the system, don't make the abuse of a few lead to the torment of many.

I totally agree!! But it must be done carefully so as not to become a rubber stamp, either way.

[trag3dy]

My concern is abuse of the system; some greedy relatives pressuring a senior or ill person to take the plunge, perhaps with the aid of an unscrupulous (or Angel of Death, they DO exist) physician, shrink, nurse practitioner etc.

 

I live near Portland Oregon, this was all over the news here. To actually be able to carry through with this the person has to make 3 formal requests to their physician. Two of those have to be verbal and one has to be hand written. 

 

So it's not like they can just walk in and do it one day on a whim.

[DocM]

If it has no 3rd party independent review with psychiatric input it's an incomplete system. As stated, there are unscrupulous people in medicine who could be influenced by beneficiaries. All it takes is a few.

[Ph1b3r0pt1c]

Ive got the same thing she has, an it will kill me eventually. Mine is in the right partial lobe(?) and is the size of a golfball. They gave me 15 months last august, the temodar chemo didnt work, neither did the radiation, and mine cant be removed. They have me on avastin so far, but at 60k a dose how could someone pay for it. I wish i had her option.

[astropheed Veteran]

This is a terrible but good story. Such mixed emotions. I'm not one to get all teary eyed, ever, but when someone says the world is beautiful and then takes their life it really makes me very upset. I'm glad she could do it on her terms in her time, I wish she didn't have to. I hope she is doing alright, wherever she is.

 

 

Ive got the same thing she has, an it will kill me eventually. Mine is in the right partial lobe(?) and is the size of a golfball. They gave me 15 months last august, the temodar chemo didnt work, neither did the radiation, and mine cant be removed. They have me on avastin so far, but at 60k a dose how could someone pay for it. I wish i had her option.

 

Last August? As in about 15 months ago?

[Ph1b3r0pt1c]

Yep, and im doing fine. The avastin is not letting it grow, but one day its going to stop working, and when that day comes ill have to endure it.

[HawkMan]

Ive got the same thing she has, an it will kill me eventually. Mine is in the right partial lobe(?) and is the size of a golfball. They gave me 15 months last august, the temodar chemo didnt work, neither did the radiation, and mine cant be removed. They have me on avastin so far, but at 60k a dose how could someone pay for it. I wish i had her option.

 

She moved for her option cause she lived in a state where it wasn't  allowed.

Yep, and im doing fine. The avastin is not letting it grow, but one day its going to stop working, and when that day comes ill have to endure it.

 

Have you had the doctors look into human trials of any of the new cancer treatments that have been/are being developed now?

[Andre S. Veteran]

It's a complicated question from an ethical and a social perspective. It's not enough to say something like "the person should be in control of her life/body" because suicide isn't generally acceptable and this is a proposed exception to this rule, so something has to justify it. Saying that it's acceptable because of imminent unavoidable death seems simplistic; life can certainly be worth living even in the face of imminent death, and death is unavoidable for everyone. So the exact conditions that would make this a moral good rather than evil are difficult to establish precisely.

 

The social aspects are even more complicated. It's difficult to see how in the face of legislation allowing euthanasia, patients in terminal conditions won't become under pressure to end their life quickly to avoid perceived "useless" treatment (deemed so by the same principle making euthanasia a moral good), even becoming perceived as selfish for perpetuating their imminently ending lives when more "valuable" ones could be saved instead. You may not want that human life becomes valuated based on its remaining duration or level of quality exist but that seems inevitable if one is to make euthanasia ethically and legally accepted. Or how it won't be extended to minors, exceptions made to initially rigorous processes, etc., as we see is already the case in countries allowing euthanasia, i.e. Belgium, Netherlands, etc. You can say there will be a rigorous process to make sure you have the authorization from several physicians etc., but this will be challenged as discriminatory when cases arise where a patient is denied euthanasia on those rules so they will be relaxed. Again with unclear ethical principles behind this it's not clear where does this stop and how much killing and suicide eventually becomes legal.

[compl3x]

It's a complicated question from an ethical and a social perspective. It's not enough to say something like "the person should be in control of her life/body" because suicide isn't generally acceptable 

 

A person can refuse treatment which would save them, in effect, commiting suicide. So obviously we allow people to make decisions that end their lives all the time, even in cases where it could be saved. If I am diagnosed with cancer and refuse treatment, they can't tie me down and administer chemotherapy. A person can make it clear they don't want to be resuscitated or have any extraordinary means used to keep them alive. Again, essentially suicide. Additionally, in those cases you don't have to prove that you are mentally stable or undergo any sort of psychiatric evaluation.

 

 

Saying that it's acceptable because of imminent unavoidable death seems simplistic; life can certainly be worth living even in the face of imminent death, and death is unavoidable for everyone. So the exact conditions that would make this a moral good rather than evil are difficult to establish precisely.

 

How does arguing "we are all going to die one day" have anything do to with alleviating long term, excruciating, unbearable suffering? The woman in the OP made every reasonable effort to seek treatment, it failed. Her death was imminent and would probably be painful and undignified (wasting away in a hospital bed, no control over her bowel/bladder, etc.).

 

I hate to be the bearer of unpleasant news but euthanasia is carried out in hospitals all over the world, all the time, usually by "accidental" overdoses. That system, that of having doctors arbitrarily deciding a patient is suffering and should be afforded relief, has no oversight, no regulation and usually no consent from the patient. I wonder why there isn't more outrage about that form of euthanasia?

 

 

In my experience, people who oppose euthanasia overwhelmingly have religious objections which they cynically dress up as non-religious objections which they then characterise as insurmountable problems. "Regulation won't work". "People might feel pressured". It's essentially a tactic to make an option seems so overly complicated that people think that it should be abandoned. How wonderfully compassionate.

[Andre S. Veteran]

A person can refuse treatment which would save them, in effect, commiting suicide.

There's a distinction between acting to cause death and letting disease take its natural course. The former is generally understood as "Homicide", and "Suicide" in the case of inflicting it unto oneself; the latter isn't. This distinction is recognized and honored by criminal codes in most countries.

 

This is far from an obvious ethical question. In France, for example, the National Consultative Ethics Comitee recently concluded that "the current law (...) operates an essential and useful distinction between "letting die" and "causing death", even if this distinction can, in certain circumstances, seem blurry. (...) Maintaining the interdiction for physicians to "willingly cause death" protects persons at the end of their lives, and it would be dangerous for society that physicians could participate in "giving death". Concerning assisted suicide, more specifically, [the members of the comitee] judge that "this legislation is not desirable", with a very reserved judgement on indications for assisted suicide and/or euthanasia in countries that have depenalized or authorized it, and express worry towards the widening of these indications in some of these countries. Finally, they consider that all evolution towards an authorization of active euthanasia could be lived by vulnerable people as a risk of not being accompanied and treated by medecine if they manifested the desire of pursuing their life until the end". (http://www.ccne-ethique.fr/sites/default/files/publications/avis_121_0.pdf , my translation).

 

I feel the biggest issue with euthanasia is that in a context of severely deficient palliative care, most patients wishing to end their lives rather than face terminal illness will do so out of fear of pain and distress that could be avoided with proper care. In Quebec where the question was recently discussed, the OIIQ (Order of Nurses of Quebec) stated that euthanasia could only be decriminalised for exceptional circumstances. "We don't want to live in a society where it is easier to die than to be treated." (http://ici.radio-canada.ca/nouvelles/societe/2010/09/28/003-commission-mourir-medecins.shtml - my translation). Looking at the experience of countries that have legalized euthanasia, it has already become much more than that. It seems difficult to avoid in the context of growing healthcare expenses considering that euthanasia saves money.

 

Modern medicine has very effective means of alleviating pain and anesthetics can be liberally administered even if that has the effect of shortening life. Given this is there any demonstrable necessity for euthanasia?

 

In my experience, people who oppose euthanasia overwhelmingly have religious objections which they cynically dress up as non-religious objections which they then characterise as insurmountable problems. "Regulation won't work". "People might feel pressured". It's essentially a tactic to make an option seems so overly complicated that people think that it should be abandoned. How wonderfully compassionate.

I'm sorry but implying that opponents of the idea are "religious" or not "compassionate" enough is just an ad hominem. I hear this sort of line all the time and it irritates me that people avoid considering these serious questions simply by labeling some people into categories.