Compassion in the final chapter: Advocating for death with dignity for Arizonans

David W. Falls

Submitted photo

Learn More

For more information and to learn where individual states, including Arizona, stand on Death with Dignity legislation, visit the Death with Dignity U.S. Legislative Status State Map at https://deathwithdignity.org/states.

Compassion lies at the heart of humanity, and the “Death with Dignity” movement exemplifies this principle by empowering terminally ill individuals to make deeply personal choices about their end-of-life journey.

Death with Dignity enables human beings faced with a terminal diagnosis to legally access rigorously regulated, life-ending medication, enabling them to bypass prolonged suffering and determine their final moments on their own terms.

In the U.S., a growing number of states have legalized physician-assisted dying or voluntary euthanasia. As of now, this option is available in California, Colorado, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Maine, Montana, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Vermont and Washington. However, it’s both striking and disheartening that a majority of states, including Arizona, continue to deliberate on whether to adopt similar measures.

Paradoxically, some of these jurisdictions proudly champion abortion rights, defending a women’s right to choose, yet refuse to extend the same respect to decisions regarding death with dignity — a clear contradiction. On one hand, pro-choice policies celebrate the right to make intimate decisions about one’s own body and life (aka “my body my choice”), emphasizing privacy and freedom from government overreach. However, when it comes to allowing terminally ill individuals the opportunity to decide the manner of their passing, that commitment to personal choice appears to vanish.

It’s ironic that a state may empower a person to decide whether to terminate a pregnancy, but deny a terminal patient the freedom to decide how to end their life. This selective application of autonomy, compassion and respect for personal choice exposes a glaring inconsistency in our policies. By not enacting Death with Dignity laws, these states are effectively opting to prolong the suffering of their constituents by denying them a compassionate, self-determined end-of-life choice. But why?

Though the concept of dying with dignity is logically sound and deeply humane, it still faces opposition rooted in profound ethical, religious and societal reservations. Some argue that life should be preserved regardless of the circumstances; however, insisting on it in every situation overlooks the intricate realities of suffering, dignity and individual freedom. Others worry about potential misuse, such as placing unwarranted pressure on vulnerable individuals to choose this option. Or that it might lead to normalizing euthanasia in less clear-cut cases — potentially paving the way for a surge of individuals emulating the late Dr. Jack Kevorkian, recklessly distributing a lethal cocktail of life-ending medications without proper oversight.

While concerns about potential misuse are understandable, robust oversight measures and proper controls have been designed to safeguard against coercion and ensure decisions are entirely voluntary. We also benefit from comprehensive data gathered in states where this procedure is performed, and the evidence clearly demonstrates that rigorous safeguards have effectively minimized misuse or nefarious activities.

Many religious traditions view life as a sacred, divine gift and therefore consider assisted dying as an intervention that disrupts the natural course set by God’s will. However, many belief systems also prioritize compassion and the mitigation of suffering. Regardless, religion should not dictate the parameters of death with dignity because these decisions affect personal autonomy and must remain free from any singular moral framework. End-of-life choices should be based on medical ethics, individual rights and compassion rather than a particular belief system.

Offering individuals the choice of physician-assisted suicide or voluntary euthanasia affirms their right to choose and preserves dignity during life's most trying moments. Prolonging an individual’s existence at all costs will most assuredly lead to a diminished quality of life. We compassionately choose to euthanize our pets when their suffering becomes intolerable, sparing them from prolonged pain and granting them a peaceful, dignified passing. Shouldn't we, as humans, be afforded similar consideration, reflecting the same humane and empathetic approach? Individuals who object to the procedure on religious or other ideological grounds are free to abstain, yet their decision must not restrict others' access to a dignified end-of-life option.

Personal convictions should remain personal; no one's beliefs should constrain the range of choices available to another, just as my own convictions must not dictate someone else's final decision. Death with Dignity isn't just about alleviating pain and suffering — it stands as a testament to our inherent right to make compassionate, personal choices. Embracing this philosophy reaffirms the critical importance of autonomy and dignity, even in the face of life's darkest hours.

Please send your comments to AzOpinions@iniusa.org. We are committed to publishing a wide variety of reader opinions, as long as they meet our Civility Guidelines.