The extreme emotional framing effectively negates any real discussion of the social implications of assisted suicide as practiced in Washington and Oregon. Even the slightest dissent is met with a backlash. For example, Ira Byock suggested Maynard could have the peaceful death she desires via palliative and hospice care. He suggested she need not take a lethal medication. I thought Byock was deferential but Maynard lashed out and stated she was concerned “that Dr. Ira Byock will speak on my behalf and that as a terminally ill patient I find it disrespectful and disturbing when people discuss my personal health with details that are not accurate to push an agenda”. Byock did not speak on Maynard’s behalf but rather suggested other viable options existed. The person with an agenda is not Byock but rather Maynard. This is not a critique but a matter of fact observation.
Nobody is suggesting anyone suffer. Nobody is suggesting suffering should not be alleviated. What is being argued is HOW it should be alleviated.
