How to Die in Oregon (2011)
In 1994, Oregon became the first U.S. state to legalize physician assisted suicide. At that time, only Belgium, Switzerland, and the Netherlands had legalized the practice--making Oregon's decision a brave, if controversial, one. Peter Richardson's new documentary, How to Die in Oregon, tells the story of those who are most intimately involved with the practice today: terminally ill Oregonians, their doctors, and their family and friends.
Using various anecdotes and sensitive investigatory methods, Richardson crafts an objective film that exquisitely explores all of the relevant emotional and intellectual intricacies of the issue, at both the policy and practical levels. The result is something deeply affecting, with implications for policymakers, as well as fresh interpretations of the practice.
The opening scene of Mr. Richardson's film is uncomfortable, yet powerful. We, the audience, sit quietly from our cinematic vantage point while an older man, stricken with a terminal ailment, awaits the administration of a lethal cocktail that will "end [his] pain and finally let [him] rest." According to Oregon's "Death with Dignity" law, a patient must be mentally aware of his or her decision and physically able to drink the medicine. The man in the film is clearly able to do both. Upon downing the cocktail and singing songs of comfort and peace, he lies back on his bed and prepares for the medication to take affect. We watch reverently with his friends and family as he slips slowly into a coma.
Mr. Richardson's opening scene riles our emotions and prepares us for what is to come: an emotionally grueling, but empowering 107 minutes. We learn about the lives of various individuals who are contemplating using the law to die with dignity, their personal reasoning is explored, their respective medical situations are explained, and often, we see divergent family responses to the idea. While controversial, and sometimes troubling, Mr. Richardson's film explores the issue with great respect for his subjects. How to Die in Oregon reaffirms the preciousness of life and the meaningful nature of death.
At the policy level, the film explains all sides of the issue. We hear from activists and opponents; religious leaders and secular intellectuals. On a personal, practical level, the film empathizes with those who suffer. While we may not fully comprehend what it is like to be dying of liver or spinal cancer, we do understand that "Death with Dignity" provides a sense of control, comfort, and power for individuals who long for at least minimal influence over Mother Nature's rigid laws; it is a tool that we too might want should we be faced with such an excruciating, unenviable death.
The most significant theme uncovered by Mr. Richardson is this idea of control over one's own life. While the end is inevitable for all living beings, the film, in its most essential sense, asks whether "having a say in the matter" should be a part of our rights as humans. In doing so, two rough conclusions emerge. The first is that dying with dignity--or exercising our right to control our own destiny in certain, continually agonizing situations--is, in fact, dying with dignity, rather than cowardly exiting this life (whether we choose to exercise this right or not). The second conclusion is that allowing the practice does not encourage "suicide." On the contrary. By providing a humane "out" for the terminally ill, people are often buoyed up with enough positive psychological reinforcement to cope with difficult, end of life experiences. Simply having the option is a comforting thought.
As a society, it is imperative that we hold a nuanced understanding of these conclusions. Mr. Richardson's powerful film helps guide us toward this understanding. [A]
