Ironically, the ideology behind PAS and Hospice are surprisingly similar, although the mechanisms for preserving the patient's dignity are markedly different. In fact, they are so similar that the motto for Hospice is Death with Dignity, while the name of Oregon's PAS law is the Death with Dignity Act. Many argue that PAS and Hospice are not mutually exclusive, as Oregon has both PAS and an excellent reputation for Palliative and Hospice Care. On the surface, it would appear that allowing both options provides the greatest amount of autonomy for all concerned. In a bizarre twist, however, those suffering from progressive, disabling, chronic but non-terminal disease, those who have a terminal disease but are severely physically handicapped and those who do not have capacity can all cry foul. For these patients, PAS is not an option, as two of the requirements under current US law are that the patient must have decision-making capacity and must be able to ingest the lethal medication without assistance.
With these thoughts in mind, please discuss the following:
A.What does it mean for a person to have dignity, and is it something that we give away or something that is taken away? Neither? Both?
B.Do you agree with Craig Ewert's decision? Why or why not? Support your answer beyond only giving an opinion.
Compose your work using a word processor and save it, as a Plain Text or an .rtf, to your computer